THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE
CASE NO 160/07

In the matter between

THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Appellant

and

FREDERIK HENDRIK GEYSER

First Respondent
FAKKEL SCRAP DEALERS CC

Second Respondent

________________________________________________________________________

CORAM:
HOWIE P, SCOTT, STREICHER, VAN HEERDEN JJA  et
MHLANTLA AJA
________________________________________________________________________

Date Heard:
15 February 2008

Delivered:
25 March 2008
Summary:
Immovable property an instrumentality of the offence of keeping a
brothel in contravention of the Sexual Offences Act 23 of 1957 – property bought
and renovated for sole purpose of that offence – forfeiture under the Prevention of
Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 not disproportionate to the Act’s remedial
purpose to inhibit crime undertaken as a business.

Neutral Citation: This judgment may be referred to as National Director of Public
Prosecutions v Geyser (160/2007) [2008] ZASCA 15 (25 March 2008)

________________________________________________________________________
HOWIE P

HOWIE P
[1] In the year 2000 a close corporation, Fakkel Scrap Dealers CC, of
which Mr Frederik Hendrik Geyser is the sole member, bought an
immovable property in Church Street, Arcadia, Pretoria. The property
comprised a single storey residence and grounds. The property was acquired
to house the business that Mr Geyser and his domestic partner, Ms Irma
Basson, opened there in September of that year. Up till the time of the
proceedings with which this case is concerned the business traded as
‘Ambassadors’ and each of them had a half share in it.

[2] In June 2005 the National Director of Public Prosecutions (the
NDPP), contending that ‘Ambassadors’ was a brothel operated in
contravention of s 2 of the Sexual Offences Act1, approached the High Court
in Pretoria for a preservation of property order in terms of s 38(2) of the
Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA)2. The order was granted. In due
course application was made to that court under s 48(1) of POCA for an
order in terms of s 50(1) that the property be forfeited to the State. The cited
respondents were Mr Geyser and the close corporation.

1   Act 23 of 1957, as amended.
2  Act 121 of 1998.

[3] The application came before Van  Rooyen AJ and was resisted.
Despite the opposition the learned Judge found that the business indeed
constituted the keeping of a brothel in contravention of the Sexual Offences
Act. However, because he also found that only the top floor was involved in
the commission of this offence it was substantially only that portion of the
property which, being an instrumentality of the offence within the meaning
of POCA, fell to be forfeited. He accordingly ordered forfeiture of the top
floor, its contents and a pro rata part of the unbuilt portion of the property.
With leave of the court below the NDPP appeals and Mr Geyser, on his own
behalf and for his close corporation, cross-appeals. The NDPP complains
that there was not forfeiture of the entire property and Mr Geyser contends
there should have been no forfeiture at all.

[3] Section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act makes it an offence to keep a
brothel.  This Act defines a brothel as including:
‘any house or place kept or used for purposes of prostitution or for persons to visit for the
purpose of having unlawful carnal intercourse ...’.3
In terms of s 3 certain persons are deemed to keep a brothel. They include:
‘(a)
...
(b)
any person who manages or assists in the management of any brothel;

3  Section 1.

(c)
any person who knowingly receives the whole or any share of any moneys taken
in a brothel.’
[4] Section 20(1) of the Sexual Offences Act also penalises ‘unlawful
carnal intercourse ... with any other person for reward’.4
[5] ‘Unlawful carnal intercourse’ is defined as ‘carnal intercourse
otherwise than between husband and wife.’5 However, it was held in S v
Jordan and others6 that this definition, if applied literally, would be
unconstitutionally overbroad and that all the sections to which I have
referred must be understood as regulating and criminalising only commercial
sex.
[6] It must be so that where prostitution occurs in a brothel (as opposed to
elsewhere) the brothel-keeper not only commits a s 2 offence but provides
for, and so aids, commission not only of the s 20(1) offence committed by
the prostitute but also the customer’s simultaneous offence either of being an
accessory at common law or of contravening s 18(2) of the Riotous
Assemblies Act of 1956.7

4  Section 20(1)(aA), which provision became s 20(1A)(a) under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and
Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007, but only if committed by anyone 18 or older.
5  Section 1.
6  2002 (6) SA 642 (CC) para 101.
7  Jordan, the majority judgment, paras 11 and 14. Section 18(2) of the Riotous Assemblies Act states:
‘Any person who –
(a) Conspires with any other person to aid or procure the commission of or to commit; or
(b) incites, instigates, commands or procures any other person to commit, an offence, whether at common
law or against a statute or statutory regulation shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to the
punishment to which a person convicted of actually committing the offence would be liable’.

[7] Upon purchase of the property Mr Geyser, with the help of others, set
about effecting a complete renovation of the building including the addition
of a second storey. He also applied for a liquor licence for the business. In
his application he said the business would be that of a guest house and
sportsman’s bar. Its name, he then claimed would be ‘Elite Sportsmans
Guesthouse’. The licence was granted.

[8] Nothing gives the lie more effectively to the allegation that the
premises were intended to be, or were ever used as, a guest house than the
layout and construction of the top floor. The liquor licence application
included a sketch plan. Subject to irrelevant subsequent modifications, the
top floor exists as shown on the plan. Of the fourteen rooms indicated as
bedrooms, ten have an identical design. They contain no more than a
shower, a double bed and a chair.  There is no space for a cupboard, a
handbasin, a toilet or any other accoutrements of the most basic or ordinary
guest accommodation.  Counsel for Mr Geyser conceded, understandably,
that the premises had never been a guest house and that these ten identical
rooms were, effectively, just cubicles for the purposes of prostitution.

[9] A police investigative operation conducted on 21 February 2003
revealed that the rooms in question each contained a supply of condoms and

were used by prostitutes for commercial sex. Consequent upon the operation
Ms Basson paid an admission of guilt fine for keeping a brothel and two of
the prostitutes8 who offered their services at the premises each paid an
admission of guilt fine.

[10] Mr Geyser was assisted by a loan of R600 000 from an acquaintance,
Mr JDJ Hattingh, in purchasing the property and to secure the loan a bond in
Mr Hattingh’s favour was registered over the property. Mr Hattingh and Ms
Basson made affidavits comprising portion of the evidence presented by the
NDPP in the court below. Their affidavits provide detailed and convincing
evidence that the business was conceived, begun and conducted ever since
as a brothel. Its income is earned from liquor sales and from the hire of the
first floor rooms each time a prostitute and a customer engage in commercial
sex.

[11] In Mr Geyser’s evidence in the court below he sought to deny that the
property housed a brothel or, if it did, that he was party to its operation. His
testimony consisted not only of affidavits. Curiously, the Judge permitted
him to give oral evidence at one stage of the proceedings. However, it was
limited to his evidence-in-chief and nothing turns on this procedural

8  A synonym for ‘prostitute’ sometimes preferred is ‘sex worker’. The Sexual Offences Act refers to
‘prostitution’ and ‘prostitute’ and I adhere to that word usage in this judgment.

eccentricity for it was subsequently agreed by the parties that the oral
evidence could stand, in effect, as an affidavit. What is plain is that every
part of his evidence that conflicts with the material aspects of the depositions
of Mr Hattingh, Ms Basson and the police witnesses, or with the damning
objective evidence to which I have referred, is so clearly untenable that it
can properly be rejected merely on the papers. The balance of probabilities is
so overwhelmingly against his protestations that even had he been cross-
examined and adhered in all essential respects to his oral evidence-in-chief
he could not have disturbed that balance.9

[12] Realistically, counsel for Mr Geyser did not seek to support his
client’s credibility. What he argued was that Mr Geyser was not keeping a
brothel. All he was doing was letting the first floor rooms, and in doing so
merely making them available for the practice of prostitution. Accordingly
he was not, in effect, selling commercial sex.

[13] In this case the evidence points inescapably to the conclusion that Mr
Geyser custom-built the building to operate as a brothel – albeit a brothel
with a bar – and, but for minor intervals which are immaterial, operated it
with Ms Basson until the NDPP’s intervention.  The drawing of that

9  Cf Administrator, Transvaal and others v Theletsane and others 1991 (2) SA (A) at 197A-C.

conclusion is in no way hampered by evidence that some visitors to
‘Ambassadors’ came merely to socialise or that the business earned more
from liquor sales than from prostitution or that the prostitutes were not
employees but free agents. The fact remains that commercial sex was the
drawcard and the focal activity.

[14] In any event brothel-keeping in contravention of the Sexual Offences
Act does not have to involve, in counsel’s terms, personally selling
commercial sex. If what Mr Geyser did was to let the upper rooms for the
purposes of prostitution then, on the facts stated, clearly the building was a
‘house ... used for purposes of prostitution or for persons to visit for the
purpose of having [commercial sex]’. In addition he is deemed to have kept
a brothel because he knowingly received a share of the moneys of the
business.

[15] As to the question whether the property or part of it was an
instrumentality of Mr Geyser’s offence of brothel-keeping, the evidence
shows that the ground floor housed the bar and provided convenient space
and facilities for people to socialise. It was also the venue for performances
of erotic dances and strip shows. It was the place where the prostitutes could
be seen and chosen by their intending customers and where those visitors as

yet uncertain might, induced by liquor or the staged entertainment, or both,
incline to customer status. More specifically it was where the customer,
having decided on the prostitute of his choice, booked and paid for her
services and for the use of an upstairs room. Those arrangements were made
at the reception area on the ground floor where the management of
‘Ambassadors’ was conducted. The ground floor was therefore an essential
component of the brothel. It follows that the court below erred in finding
that only the top floor was involved.

[16] To be an instrumentality of an offence the property concerned must by
definition in POCA, be ‘concerned in the commission’ of that offence. As
the cases have interpreted that definition, the property must facilitate
commission of the offence and be directly causally connected with it so that
it is integral to commission of the offence.10 The whole building satisfied
that requirement. That was enough to make the entire property sufficiently
linked to the offence to make it an instrumentality whatever insignificance
the surrounding grounds had.

[17] Turning to the issue of forfeiture, POCA does not define organised
crime. Species of what inevitably are organised crimes are described and

10  NDPP v Cook Properties [2004] 2 All SA 491 (SCA) para 34;  NDPP v Mohunram 2006 (1) SACR 544
(SCA) para 4; Mohunram v NDPP 2007 (4) SA 222 (CC) para 49.

provided for in the text.11 For forfeiture to be ordered, the offence of which
the property concerned is an instrumentality must be a Schedule 1 offence.12
Schedule 1 contains an itemised list of common law and statutory offences.
Item 11 is contravention of section 20(1) of the Sexual Offences Act. Item
33 is any offence, the punishment for which may be imprisonment
exceeding one year without the option of a fine. The penalty prescribed for
brothel-keeping is three years’ imprisonment, with or without a fine of
R6 00013. That is also the penalty for having commercial sex i.e. the
prostitute’s offence of contravening what is now s 20(1A)(a). In view of the
provisions of s 18(2) of the Riotous Assemblies Act,14 the customer would
be liable to the same penalties, if not as a common law accessory in the
alternative. Forfeiture in this case is therefore legally competent under
POCA.

[18] Although s 50(1) of POCA requires forfeiture where property is an
instrumentality of an offence, the courts must ensure that forfeiture does not
amount to arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional deprivation of property.
They must be satisfied that the consequences of a forfeiture order are

11  Section 2 (offences related to racketeering activities), s 4 (money laundering), s 6 (receiving the
proceeds of unlawful activities) and s 9 (gang related offences).
12  Section 38(1) read with ss 48(1) and 50(1).
13   Section 22(a) of the Sexual Offences Act.
14  Note 7.

proportionate to the purpose for which it is made. They therefore have a
discretion to decline forfeiture, despite s 50(1), if the impact of the
deprivation would be out of proportion to that purpose.15

[19] The court below did not deal with proportionality in its judgment. The
limited forfeiture ordered was motivated by the instrumentality finding, not
by any proportionality exercise.

[20] As pointed out in NDPP v Vermaak,16 although there has been some
difference of views on the question whether POCA applies to crimes which
cannot be categorised as organised crimes,17 this court has held that it does.18
That decision was approved by a unanimous Constitutional Court.19 That it
does, was also the conclusion of five judges of the Constitutional Court in
Mohunram.20 The other judgments in that case left the question open but
nevertheless countenanced an approach whereby, in an instance not
involving a crime designated in the text of POCA, one would be concerned
to determine how closely or remotely, as the case might be, the offence in
such matter was connected to the main purpose of POCA. In the other

15   NDPP v Cook Properties (note 10) para 74; NDPP v Van Staden 2007 (1) SACR 338 (SCA) paras 5
and 8; Prophet v NDPP 2007 (2) BCLR (CC) paras 58 to 61;  NDPP v Mohunram (note 10) paras 56 to 63,
122 to 123 and 142 to 143.
16 2008 (1) SACR 157 (SCA) para 4.
17  Usually referred to as ‘ordinary crimes’ or ‘individual criminal wrongdoing’.
18  Prophet v NDPP 2006 (1) SA 38 (SCA).
19  Prophet v NDPP (note 15).
20  Note 10.

judgments it was suggested that the test might be whether the offence under
consideration was such that it rendered conventional penalties inadequate.21
One would therefore, on that approach, have regard to the penalties
prescribed for the particular offence.

[21] In arguing against forfeiture, counsel for Mr Geyser stressed the
predominance of the business’ liquor income over its income from letting
the upper rooms for prostitution. He urged that a comparison favourable to
his client’s case was to be drawn with Mohunram’s case, where forfeiture
was refused.22 He also contended that it would be disproportionate if the
State acquired the property and stripped Mr Geyser of an asset which the
latter deposed was currently worth R2 million. Such a result, counsel said,
would constitute excessive punishment for an offence for which the
prescribed penalties, and particularly a possible sentence of three years’
imprisonment, were sufficient deterrent.

[22] These submissions cannot, in my view, prevail. I have already said
that commercial sex was the central feature of the business. Nothing justifies
the inference that the bar would have existed, much less been viable, just on

21  Mohunram, paras 126 and 145.
22  By a majority of six to five.

its own. It served to facilitate creation of an atmosphere conducive to what
was the principal business of the house.

[23] In Mohunram the offences involved were contraventions of the
KwaZulu-Natal Gambling Act 10 of 1996. The offender, through a close
corporation, bought a commercial property. He partitioned it. In one part he
conducted a lawful glass and aluminium business. In the other he installed
57 unregistered gaming machines, thus operating an unlicensed casino. He
was charged with unlawful possession of the machines and with employing
three people to work in the casino. The upshot was that the machines were
confiscated and destroyed and he paid fines totalling R88 5000. As
mentioned, forfeiture of the property was held by a divided Constitutional
Court to be excessive and was refused.

[24] There are material differences between Mohunram and the present
case. First, the property in that matter was bought and used for two purposes.
One was legitimate. Here, the property was acquired solely for a criminal
purpose.

[25] Secondly, gambling indeed has negative social implications and
therefore requires statutory regulation.23 But, armed with the necessary
licenses and registration it is lawful. By contrast, brothels are not capable of
legal regulation; they remain illicit.24 And there can be little doubt, to my
mind, that brothel-keeping would be seen by a majority in society, if not
society as a whole, as morally more reprehensible than operating
unregistered gaming machines. Brothel-keepers, as mentioned, commit their
own offence and aid in the commission of the prostitutes’ offence. In doing
so, they themselves earn an income from prostitution.25

[26] Thirdly, the offending machines having been removed, which were
the essential means by which the principal offence in Mohunram was
committed, the property was capable of use for the legitimate glass and
aluminium business. Here, there was no independent lawful enterprise. The
brothel business and the property were inextricably linked. Stopping that
business involved taking the property. It is not Mr Geyser’s case that he ever
had, or would in future have, another use for it.

23  ‘(G)ambling is an activity that could pose a threat to individuals’ psychological, financial and even
physical health, as well as those of their families and communities’: Magajane v Chairperson, North West
Gambling Board 2006 (5) SA 250 (CC) paras 81 to 82
24  In Jordan a challenge to the constitutionality of ss 2 and 3 of the Sexual Offences Act failed.
25  It was not shown that Mr Geyser actually lived off the earning of prostitution as opposed to just
receiving an income from it. Living wholly or partly on the earnings of prostitution is an offence under
s 20(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act.

[27] Fourthly, in Mohunram, apart from losing his machines (which he
valued at R285 000), the offender paid a very substantial fine. In the present
instance Mr Geyser’s business partner paid an admission of guilt fine which
was trifling by comparison. He himself, according to the evidence, refused
to pay an admission of guilt fine, steadfastly maintaining that he had
committed no offence. Accordingly he has, as yet, sustained no punishment
at all.

[28] It follows that the result in Mohunram offers little if any assistance in
the advancement of Mr Geyser’s case.

[29] Coming to the contention that loss of a property allegedly worth R2
million would be unconstitutionally disproportionate, a number of important
observations were made by this court in NDPP v Vermaak,26 with which I
respectfully agree, and which point the way to the answer in this case. They
are contained in the following paragraphs:
‘[10] It was pointed out in Cook Properties that an order of forfeiture inevitably
operates as both a penalty and a deterrent but I think its primary purpose is remedial.
Punishment and deterrence are part of the function of sentence and I do not understand
the Act to be aimed at simply adding to sentences that might be imposed. On the
contrary, I think it is apparent from the nature of the measure that forfeiture aims

26  2008 (1) SACR 157 (SCA).

primarily at crippling or inhibiting criminal activity, and it is in that light that the
discretion to order it ought to be exercised.
[11] Where an offence has been committed in the course of a broader enterprise of
criminal activity that is being conducted by the offender in association with others it can
serve not only to inhibit the particular offender from continuing that activity but also to
arrest the continuance of that activity by others who are party to the ongoing enterprise.
And even where the offence is committed in the course of an ongoing criminal enterprise
that is being conducted by the offender alone the withdrawal of property is capable of
having a severely inhibiting effect on its continuance. It seems to me, in other words, that
forfeiture is likely to have its greatest remedial effect where crime has become a
business.’27

[30] The primary question, therefore, is not: would forfeiture constitute
punishment (whether excessive or at all), but: would forfeiture have more
than the necessary remedial effect?

[31] When Mr Geyser bought the property he must have known that
prostitution and brothel-keeping were criminal. Although the evidence
suggests the existence, before delivery of the Jordan judgments,28 of
speculation in some quarters that the result of that case might open the way

27  In para 19 there is, furthermore, reference to the significance of the consideration (if present) that an
offender has acted ‘in deliberate defiance of the law’.
28  Handed down on 9 October 2002.

to legalised brothel-keeping and prostitution, it is not his case that he thought
so or that he banked on such a result.

[32] Undeterred by the Jordan decision and the police operation on
21 February 2003, he continued with his criminal activities.

[33] The evidence reveals that in September 2004 the police issued a
formal notice to him, Ms Basson and Mr Hattingh that ‘Ambassadors’ was a
brothel and that POCA could be enforced against them unless they desisted.
Not even this very specific warning had any remedial effect. It is therefore
appropriate to say that Mr Geyser acted throughout in deliberate defiance of
the law.

[34] Counsel for Mr Geyser submitted that if the authorities wished to
inhibit Mr Geyser’s activities they had a substantial penal provision at their
disposal and that forfeiture of the property would be disproportionate to the
ends sought to be achieved. Without in any way understanding that
submission as indicative of Mr Geyser’s readiness to accept any sentence at
all, the fact is that the record in this case justifies the inference that apart
from the investigative raid and the imposition of insignificant admission of
guilt fines, the police and the prosecution services had neither the resources
nor the inclination to institute criminal proceedings in this matter. Once

again, however, even if prosecution had occurred and had resulted in
punishment and, conceivably, some deterrence, the predominant focus, as I
have said, is not on deterrence. As held by this court in Vermaak, where the
offence involves the operation of a business, the primary focus is on
remedial effect even though the question of an imposed or potential criminal
sentence may still have some relevance.

[35] In my judgment the required remedial effect is one which will convey
the unmistakable message to Mr Geyser, to other brothel-keepers and to the
public at large that the law does not turn a blind eye to the persistent and
obdurate pursuit of a criminal business and will act to demonstrate that
brothel-keeping does not pay. The appropriate means by which to convey
that message in this case is by forfeiture of the property in question.

[36] There is some dispute, and uncertainty, on the record as to the value
of the property. It was bought for R320 000 and an unspecified amount was
spent on its renovation. Although the bond debt comprises R600 000 in
capital and very possibly double that sum in interest, counsel for Mr Geyser
contended that Mr Hattingh would be barred by the ex turpi causa principle
from recovery. Accordingly, it was argued, what Mr Geyser would be
deprived of by forfeiture would be the full current value of the property. On

the case for the NDPP, an estate agent (who was not able to obtain access to
the property) estimated a value of R900 00. Be that all as it may, the
argument that forfeiture of the property would be disproportionate is, in my
view, misplaced.

[37] Assuming, for purposes of argument, that forfeiture would deprive Mr
Geyser of the full unbonded current value of the property, and that it is
worth R2 million, he can have no legitimate cause for complaint. What he
paid out of his own pocket he knowingly invested in a criminal enterprise
and for no other purpose. There is no acceptable ground for saying he should
get that sum back. As to the increase in the capital value of the property, this
will have been due to the improvements he effected as well as to increases in
property values in the area. Although the legal reason for his having access
to this capital gain is because he is the sole member of the owner
corporation, the factual reason is because he acquired the property, and used
it more or less incessantly thereafter, solely for a criminal purpose. It is not
alleged he would ever have carried on any other activity or business on the
property nor, indeed, that he will do so now. It follows that if he had not
embarked on his criminal enterprise he would not have achieved the gain
that he seeks to retain.

[38] For all the reasons discussed, I hold that the NDPP has established
that forfeiture will not be disproportionate to the purposes which POCA
aims to achieve.

[39] The court below should therefore have ordered forfeiture of the entire
property.

[40] The order of this court is as follows:
A.
The appeal succeeds with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
B.
The cross-appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two
counsel.
C.
The order of the Court below is set aside and replaced by the
following order:
‘1.
An order is granted in terms of the provisions of section 50 of the
Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (“the Act”) declaring
forfeit to the State the immovable property situated at 829 Church
Street, Arcadia, Pretoria, together with its contents (“the property”),
which property is presently subject to a preservation of property order
granted by this court on 15 June 2005.
2.
The curator bonis appointed by this court in terms of the order
granted on 15 June 2005 shall continue to act as such with authority to

perform all the functions specified in the Act subject to the provisions
of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965 and the supervision of
the Master of the High Court.
3.
The curator bonis shall have all such powers, duties and authority as
provided for in the Act and in this order, including such powers, duty
and authority reasonably incidental thereto and shall, in addition, be
subject to the applicable provisions of the Administration of Estates
Act 66 of 1965. The fees and expenditure of the curator bonis
reasonably incurred in the execution of his duties shall be paid from
the proceeds of the forfeited property.
4.
In terms of section 56(2) of the Act, the property shall vest in the
curator bonis on behalf of the State on the date on which the
forfeiture order takes effect.
5.
The curator bonis is authorised, as of the date on which the forfeiture
order takes effect, to
5.1
assume control of the property and take it into his custody;
5.2
dispose of the property by private sale or other means;
5.3
deduct his fees and expenditure which were approved by the Master
of the High Court;

5.4
deposit the balance of the proceeds in the Criminal Assets Recovery
account established under section 63 of the Act, number 80303056
held at the South African Reserve Bank, Vermeulen Street, Pretoria;
5.5
perform any ancillary acts which are necessary in the opinion of the
curator bonis, but subject to any directions of the Criminal Assets
Recovery Committee established under section 65 of the Act.
6.
The curator bonis shall as soon as possible but not later than within a
period of 90 days of this order coming into effect, file a report with
the applicant and the Master of the High Court indicating the manner
in which he:
6.1
completed the administration of the property mentioned above and
6.2
complied with the terms of this order.
7.
The Registrar of this court must publish a notice of this order in the
Government Gazette as soon as practical after the order is made.
8.
Any person affected by the forfeiture order, and who was entitled to
receive notice of the application under section 48(2) but who did not
receive such notice, may within 45 days after the publication of the
notice of the forfeiture order in the Gazette, apply for an order under
section 54 of the Act, excluding his or her interest in the property, and
varying the operation of the order in respect of the property.

9.
All the paragraphs of the order operate with immediate effect, save for
paragraphs 4 and 5 which will only take effect on the day that an
application for the exclusion of interest in forfeited property in terms
of section 54 of the Act is disposed of, or after expiry of the period in
which an application may be made in terms of section 54 of the Act.
10.
The First and Second Respondents are ordered to pay the costs of this
application jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be
absolved.’

______________________
CT HOWIE
PRESIDENT
SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

CONCUR:
SCOTT JA
STREICHER  JA
VAN HEERDEN  JA
MHLANTLA AJA