Luxury Huka Lodge near Taupo is among the assets at stake in the long-running dispute.

The High Court has ordered Huka Lodge owner Alex van Heeren to repay at least US$25 million (NZ$32m) to a business partner Michael Kidd of more than 20 years ago.

The pair have been feuding since the mid-1990s after Michael Kidd claimed van Heeren had hidden millions of dollars worth of assets from him when their partnership was supposedly terminated in 1991.

In a ruling issued on Friday, the High Court followed up a previous judgment in South Africa by ordering Van Heeren to pay US$25m into the court as an interim accounting of the sum owing to Kidd. Justice John Fogarty also ordered that van Heeren draw up and deliver to the court an account of all the worldwide assets of the partnership he had with Kidd.

South Africa-based Kidd is seeking half the value of the empire the pair built in the 1970s and 80s.

Kidd claims he was short-changed when the partnership split, receiving a less than US$5m share from a significant pool of assets.

Along with Huka Lodge - which has hosted guests including the Queen and Prince Philip, Rachel Hunter and Rod Stewart and Hollywood stars Michael Douglas and Kate Winslet - the partnership had about US$30m worth of holdings in Wellesley Holdings, as well as owning Fiji's Dolphin Island and about 32 kilograms of gold.

Van Heeren had maintained that Kidd had no rights to the assets.

The case has been on hold in New Zealand since 1996 as a dispute over documents was sorted out by the South African courts.

Kidd and van Heeren went into the steel trading business together in South Africa in 1975, with Kidd managing the trading while van Heeren managed the finances.

But their business relationship ended in 1991, and van Heeren argued that an "indemnity" signed that year constituted a full and final settlement of all matters between him and Kidd.

In October last year, the South Gauteng High Court declared the indemnity was null and void, and of no force and effect, concluding "that there were misrepresentations which were deliberately made" by the defendant (van Heeran) to get the plaintiff (Kidd) to sign it.

And the court found, there was a partnership between Kidd and van Heeren.

In his judgment Fogarty quoted extensively from the African court's ruling, including quoting the South African judge saying: "I can only conclude that there were misrepresentations which were deliberately made."

Fogarty said South African judge went on to say: "Van Heeren's behaviour over a period of years suggests that he had started treating Genan and Prime NZ profits for the benefit of himself alone, and in so doing, cheating Kidd."

Genan and Prime NZ were companies set up to purchase assets.

The South African court concluded Kidd had signed the indemnity because he had been misled. "I am satisfied that Van Heeran took advantage of Kidd," its judgment read.

Fogarty ruled that following the accounting, "any amount certified by the High Court on the basis of that account be paid", which could mean more than the US$25m is paid to Kidd, which could see him recieve an even greater payment.