Synopsis:
Application challenging the validity of the forfeiture of a house, in terms of POCA, that had been used in gambling operations. There was no dispute that the house was an instrumentality of the offence but the Court disagreed on whether such forfeiture was proportionate. The majority held that the forfeiture was disproportionate. Majority: Moseneke DCJ (concurring Mokgoro J and Nkabinde J) Separate Concurrences: Sachs J (concurring O'Regan J and Kondile AJ) Dissent: Van Heerden AJ (concurring Langa CJ, Madala J, Van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J)
