When the pair split, Kidd claims he received only US$3 million of assets valued conservatively at US$38.5 million that included over 30kg of gold, Huka Lodge and Fiji's Dolphin Island resort.
Van Heeren relied upon the indemnity document as his defence to this claim and in 1997 the High Court put a stay on the litigation until the South African courts had declared the validity and scope of the document.
In a judgement last May, South Africa's Judge Kathy Satchwell declared the indemnity document null and void.
In her decision, the judge said Kidd was induced to sign the indemnity by van Heeren's "deliberate misrepresentations".
"These misrepresentations were false ... these misrepresentations were intended to induce Kidd to sign the indemnity and did so induce Kidd to sign. These misrepresentations would have induced any reasonable person to have entered into the indemnity," the judge said.
Van Heeren made a bid to take the case to South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal but his application for leave to appeal was dismissed last October.
The Supreme Court did not give the full reasons for its decision but indicated it was of the view that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
Lawyers for both van Heeren and Kidd appeared briefly this week before Justice Murray Gilbert in the High Court at Auckland, which heard the stay on the New Zealand litigation was no longer in effect and had lifted on its own terms. Kidd's lawyer Brent O'Callahan said the plaintiff would proceed using the original pleadings.
The Queen's Counsel for Van Heeren, Christopher Hodson, indicated he would file a statement of defence by May 14.
Hodson told the Herald earlier this year that Huka Lodge was not at stake in the litigation.
However, Judge Satchwell's decision said she is satisfied that Kidd's and Van Heeren's partnership made acquisitions that included Huka Lodge. According to documents from property website QV, Kidd filed a caveat over the Huka Lodge's 6.7ha property in February.
