In an urgent application, the appellant sought the setting aside of the warrant in light of the underhand manner in which it had been obtained. It also applied for a declaration that the goods seized were not counterfeit and for an inquiry into damages. The court hearing the application found that the warrant had been obtained irregularly and set it aside. It ordered the return of the appellant's goods. The court did not express any view about whether or not the appellant's product was counterfeit. It also postponed sine die the prayer for an inquiry into damages. The appellant did not take further formal steps in relation to the inquiry into damages until three years after the judgment when it applied by means of an interlocutory application for directions for the conduct of the inquiry. The first respondent responded with a counter­application for an order declaring that the appellant's claim had become prescribed. The dismissal of the first respondent's defenses led to the appeal being upheld. It was ordered that date should be set for an inquiry to be conducted by way of a High Court trial for the purposes of determining the amount of compensation to be paid by the respondents to the appellant as contemplated in section 10(1)(c) of the Counterfeit Goods Act.