Judgment No. SC 22/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 291/16 Indeed the learned judge went further to suggest that the failure to plead the real defence or cause of action may suggest shear idleness or incompetence on the part of the legal practitioner, or a deliberate and unconscionable attempt to avoid attracting an onus or burden of adducing evidence or, lastly, that the defence was an afterthought. [46] The above sentiments apply with equal force to this matter. The appellant approached the court applying for interdictory relief. Indeed at that stage there was a mere threat of occupation by the first respondent. No spoliation had taken place. This is common cause. The provisional order was granted on that basis. What therefore fell for determination on the return day was whether the provisional order should be confirmed. As already noted, it could not have been confirmed, once the appellant had accepted that the land had indeed been lawfully acquired. It was not permissible, on the part of the appellant and on the same papers, to introduce the issue of spoliation later in the proceedings and seek to obtain that relief in place of the interdictory relief initially prayed for. IN ANY EVENT SPOLIATORY RELIEF IS FINAL [47] The law is settled that an order of spoliation is final in nature and that it determines the immediate right of possession of a particular res. It is frequently followed by further proceedings between the parties concerning their rights to the property in question – Nienaber v Stuckey 1946 AD 1049, 1053; Malan & Another v Green Valley Farm Portion 7 Holt Hill 434 CC and Others 2007 (5) SA 114 (ECD), 124 A-B; Moreover a spoliation order cannot be granted on the evidence of a prima facie right - Blue Range Estates P/L v Muduvisi 2009 (1) ZLR 368, 377D. 18