Judgment No. SC 22/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 291/16 [24] The above remark that the first respondent could not be denied audience because the appellant had no right to the land was clearly erroneous. Whether the first respondent had a right of audience before that court had nothing to do with the question whether the appellant had any legal rights to the land. The appellant had submitted in its heads of argument that, despite the clear interdictory relief granted, the first respondent had nevertheless taken occupation of the farm and had disrupted farming activities thereon. On that basis, appellant had urged the court not to hear the first respondent until such time as he purged his contempt. [25] Notwithstanding the above error on the part of the court a quo, it is clear that, for the reason that follows, the decision by the court giving audience to the first respondent was, at the end of the day, the correct one. The appellant had instituted separate proceedings in HC 1856/14 for an order declaring the first respondent to be in contempt of court. The High Court did, in fact, find the first respondent guilty of contempt of court but this order was immediately appealed against and, at the time of the confirmation proceedings in that Court, the matter was pending before this Court. Also pending before the High Court was an application to execute the order that the first respondent was in contempt pending determination of the appeal. [25] The position is now settled in our law that the noting of an appeal suspends the execution of the judgment appealed against unless the court otherwise directs. See Longman Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v Midzi & Ors 2008 (1) ZLR 198(S), 204 E-F. The general effect of the noting of an appeal is that no results can flow from the judgment appealed against which would place the parties in a position different from that which they enjoyed immediately before judgment was given. I therefore accept Mr Mpofu’s 10