Judgment No. SC 22/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 291/16 not attend the hearing. The court then granted interim interdictory relief which, inter alia, called upon the first respondent to show cause why the order sought should not be confirmed on the return day. [8] The first respondent opposed the confirmation of the provisional order. He averred that the land in question had been offered to him by the Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement. He admitted visiting the farm to notify the appellant of the need to wind up operations within a period of three months. He further stated that the land in question had been gazetted by the State and attached a copy of the Gazette of 17 September 2003. In the circumstances, he submitted that there was no lawful basis for the confirmation of the provisional order previously granted as that would be tantamount to perpetuating criminality on the part of the appellant. He therefore sought an order discharging the provisional order. [9] In its answering affidavit, the appellant averred that, by the time the provisional order was granted, the first respondent’s wife had moved three of her workers into staff quarters at the farm. Between 1 and 2 August 2014, persons acting on behalf of the first respondent also moved onto the farm, rounded up appellant’s pedigree herd and removed same from the farm, evicted appellant’s labour force from the farm compound and directed that the gates leading to the irrigated vegetables be left unlocked. The appellant stated further that it had not at any stage been ordered by the Government to vacate the farm nor had any eviction order been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction. In the circumstances the appellant sought an order preventing self-help by the first respondent and confirming the provisional order. 3