[22] A warrant would in my view have been issued to him had he applied for one. He fully explains why no such application had been made beforehand, by reason of the uncertainty as to the place of residence of the applicant. This reason is subsequently demonstrated to be well founded as the applicant was not in fact residing at the residence in Diamante Street, Khomasdal. The cash deposits by Olivier and others identified as drug dealers known to the Unit and the undercover operation on the preceding days would have justified the issue of a search warrant. [23] There would also be reasonable grounds for a belief that the obtaining of the warrant, after establishing the actual whereabouts as the events unfolded, applicant’s may also have defeated the object of such a search. The first respondent stated that the person who pointed out the residence to him when pressed to do so was applicant’s visibly nervous in doing so. There would certainly be reasonable grounds for apprehending that the applicant may get wind of a possible search had the first respondent then delayed by applying for a warrant. [24] I am accordingly satisfied that the search was in accordance with s22 of the Act and was thus lawful. The relief sought in this regard accordingly fails. [25] The further question arises as to the seizure of the articles. The first respondent relies upon s20 of the Act. This section provides:
[22] A warrant would in my view have been issued to him had he applied for one. He fully explains why no such application had been made beforehand, by reason of the uncertainty as to the place of residence of the applicant. This reason is subsequently demonstrated to be well founded as the applicant was not in fact residing at the residence in Diamante Street, Khomasdal. The cash deposits by Olivier and others identified as drug dealers known to the Unit and the undercover operation on the preceding days would have justified the issue of a search warrant. [23] There would also be reasonable grounds for a belief that the obtaining of the warrant, after establishing the applicant’s actual whereabouts as the events unfolded, may also have defeated the object of such a search. The first respondent stated that the person who pointed out the applicant’s residence to him when pressed to do so was visibly nervous in doing so. There would certainly be reasonable grounds for apprehending that the applicant may get wind of a possible search had the first respondent then delayed by applying for a warrant. [24] I am accordingly satisfied that the search was in accordance with s22 of the Act and was thus lawful. The relief sought in this regard accordingly fails. [25] The further question arises as to the seizure of the articles. The first respondent relies upon s20 of the Act. This section provides:
Swartz%20v%20Indongo%20and%20Others%20(A%20334-2011)%20[2012]%20NAHC%201%20(16%20January%202012)%20.docx