Judgment No. SC 22/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 291/16 claiming through him had moved onto the farm, rounded up appellants’ pedigree Hereford herd and removed the same from the farm; had evicted the appellant’s labour from the farm compound and occupied the compound; had removed the Senepol pedigree herd and instructed the appellant’s labour force not to lock the gate leading to the vegetable garden. [21] Following what the appellant considered was the unlawful taking over of the farm by the first respondent, the appellant filed an application seeking an order, in HC 1856/14, that the first respondent be found to be in contempt of the order of the court a quo. Although the first respondent opposed that application, the High Court granted the order declaring the first respondent to be in contempt of court and further ordered that he complies with the provisional order. The first respondent appealed to this Court against that order. A further application seeking execution pending determination of the appeal was also filed by the appellant. Both matters had not been determined at the time of the disposition made by the court a quo which forms the basis of the present appeal. [22] Whether the first respondent had a right of audience was an issue that was considered by the court a quo. At page 3 of the cyclostyled judgment, the trial judge remarked:“Ms Dube sought as a preliminary point the barring of the first respondent from being heard on the basis that he has not complied with the contempt order. It is common cause that the first respondent noted an appeal against the contempt order. Whilst acknowledging the appeal that was noted, Ms Dube persisted with the preliminary point on the basis that despite the noting of the appeal, the first respondent had still not complied with the provisional order. … [23] At page 5 of the judgment, the court a quo further remarked:“In light of the above case authorities, and relevant legislation, I found applicant counsel’s preliminary point of seeking that the first respondent be denied audience to be untenable. The applicant has no legal right to the land in question …” 9