Judgment No. SC 22/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 291/16 occupying. Indeed it is common cause that title to the land now vested in the Government and, as senior government officials in charge of the Agriculture Ministry, the two Deputy Ministers would have been aware that they had no jurisdiction to take over the functions of the Ministry responsible for land allocation and clothe the appellant with the necessary authority to continue farming. [28] This Court has made it clear that in terms of the law, only persons with lawful authority can continue to possess or work agricultural land. What constitutes lawful authority, is now settled in this jurisdiction – Commercial Farmers’ Union and Others v The Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement and Others 2010(2) ZLR 576(S), 591C, 596C. [29] In the circumstances, there can be no question of the State being estopped from denying that the appellant had the lawful authority to occupy the land. The visits by the Deputy Ministers of Agriculture had nothing to do with the legal status of the appellant’s operations. They would not, in any event, have had the jurisdiction in terms of the law, to authorise the appellant to continue operations in the face of the fact that title now vested in the State. RELIEF SOUGHT A QUO – SPOLIATORY OR INTERDICTORY? [30] The real dispute between the appellant and the first respondent is whether the relief that the appellant sought in the court a quo was interdictory or spoliatory. The appellant says it sought an order of spoliation. The first respondent disagrees and submits that the relief the appellant sought was an interdict. In order to determine what relief exactly the appellant sought, one must go to the founding papers. 12