Judgment No. SC 22/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 291/16 of spoliation that the very same court had already determined to be deserving and granted.” It further argued that the proceedings, having been spoliatory, “consideration of the factors relevant in an application for an interdict were irrelevant.” The illegality or otherwise of the possession was not an issue as the aim of spoliation is to prevent the kind of self-help that the first respondent resorted to in this case. AN APPLICANT STANDS OR FALLS ON ITS FOUNDING PAPERS [44] The position is now settled in this jurisdiction that an applicant stands or falls by his founding affidavit and the facts alleged in it. Although it is sometimes permissible to supplement the allegations contained in the founding affidavit, the main basis of the application is the allegation of facts stated therein. A number of decisions of the courts in this country have stressed this position – see Moven Kufa & Anor v The President of The Republic of Zimbabwe & Nine Ors, CCZ 22/17 and the authorities cited on pages 14-15 of the cyclostyled judgment. [45] More to the point are the remarks of MCNALLY JA in Keavney & Anor v Msabaeka Bus Services (Pvt) Ltd 1996 (1) ZLR 605 (S). At page 608 C, the learned judge cited with approval the remarks by MULLINS J in Nieuwoudt v Joubert 1988(3) SA 84c that:“The purpose of pleadings is to define the issues, and to enable the other party to know what case he has to meet.” The learned judge further cited with approval the remarks of MILNE J in Kali v Incorporated General Insurance Ltd 1976 (2) SA 179(D) at 182A that: “A pleader cannot be allowed to direct the attention of the other party to one issue; and then at the trial attempt to canvass another.” (at 608 B). 17