Never before has a top judge waxed so lyrical about nipples and tipples, can-can and striptease, permissible cleavage and see-though dresses.
All this and more in a judgment about the constitutionality of the Liquor Act and how it interfered with freedom of expression.
While the Constitutional Court judgment was read on Tuesday, Andrew Phillips, who managed to quash parts of the Liquor Act, had one thought - the man who had closed his business had opened himself up for a damages claim.
The landmark appeal was brought by Phillips, the owner of The Ranch and an adjacent Sandton strip club, the Titty Twister.
"I am beginning to feel exonerated," Phillips said.
For three years he has been doing battle with the Asset Forfeiture Unit, which shut down The Ranch and the Titty Twister.
"They shut me down under bad law. They have opened their legs wide for a damages claim," he said.
Phillips added that the ruling would benefit the industry greatly.
He said the state had been ordered to pay his legal fees of R100 000.
According to Phillips, he made R10 000 profit a month before the Titty Twister was shut.
"I have not applied my mind as to how much money I have lost. But I will be creative when I do. Even if you divide the damages we will claim by a cellphone number, it will be big. You must remember that 200 members of my staff have received no salary for two years."
In four separate judgments, the Constitutional Court grappled with the issue of freedom of expression, which counsel for Phillips, David Unterhalter SC, argued was infringed by the Liquor Act.
Judge Zak Yacoob, writing for the majority, criticised government departments for paying so little attention to the matter.
The National Directorate of Public Prosecutions said it had decided not to oppose the appeal.
The department of safety and security referred the matter to the national commission of safety and security and never heard about it again, while the minister of trade and industry did not answer the chief justice's letter.
Judge Yacoob ruled that the Liquor Act was so wide it seemed to cover dramatic performances irrespective of whether they represented serious works of art or the communication of ideas essential for positive social development.
He said this infringed on the right of expression. - Own correspondent