ZONDI AJ a prosecution for all sexual offences, other than those listed in section 18(f), (h) and (i), after the lapse of a period of 20 years from the time when the offence was committed. In terms of section 172(1) of the Constitution,52 a declaration to that effect must be made, including any order that is just and equitable. The offending portion of section 18 must be struck down. That leaves the question whether the portion of section 18 should be struck down with immediate effect or should be suspended to allow Parliament to enact remedial legislation. Related to this question is the question as to when the order of invalidity shall take effect. [67] This Court has said on many occasions that in granting appropriate relief, and making an order that is just and equitable under section 172(1)(b), it is imperative that where possible and appropriate, successful litigants should obtain the relief they seek53 and that that relief should be effective. As Ackermann J reasoned in Fose: ―This brings me to the final and most debated question, namely whether in the present case any additional amount of punitive constitutional damages can be awarded to the plaintiff over and above the amounts he would be entitled to recover for patrimonial loss, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, contumelia and other general damages. Given the historical context in which the interim Constitution was adopted and the extensive violation of fundamental rights which had preceded it, I have no doubt that this Court has a particular duty to ensure that, within the bounds of the Constitution, effective relief be granted for the infringement of any of the rights entrenched in it. In our context an appropriate remedy must mean an effective remedy, for without effective remedies for breach, the values underlying and the rights entrenched in the 52 Section 172(1) of the Consitution provides: ―When deciding a constitutional matter within its power, a court— (a) must declare that any law or conduct that is inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid to the extent of its inconsistency; and (b) may make any order that is just and equitable, including— (i) an order limiting the retrospective effect of the declaration of invalidity; and (ii) an order suspending the declaration of invalidity for any period and on any conditions, to allow the competent authority to correct the defect.‖ 53 S v Bhulwana; S v Gwadiso [1995] ZACC 11; 1996 (1) SA 388 (CC); 1995 (12) BCLR 1579 (CC) at para 32. 28