Judgment No. SC 22/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 291/16 submission that the issue of contempt cannot properly arise on the papers. Whether or not the first respondent had conducted himself contrary to the order of the High Court was not common cause. That issue is the subject of an appeal that is pending before this Court. The suggestion that this Court should decline audience to the first respondent on the basis of a disputed contempt that is still to be determined by this Court cannot have been honestly made. On the facts before it, the court a quo had no basis for refusing to hear the first respondent and therefore correctly dismissed that preliminary point. WHETHER ESTOPPEL APPLIES [26] Both in its founding and answering affidavits in the court a quo, the appellant averred that between January and February 2014, two deputy Ministers of Agriculture had visited the farm to see first-hand the operations of the appellant and how its officials were working with the local community and resettled farmers. They expressed encouragement and support for the appellant’s operations in the dairy industry and pedigree breeding project. This gave the appellant confidence that it was indeed permitted to continue its farming enterprise on the land. As government is composed of various Ministries, the appellant was led to believe that it had the tacit consent and permission of the government to continue with its farming activities. The appellant therefore believed it had a valid reason in terms of the law for its continued occupation of the farm. [27] I do not believe that this submission need detain this Court. The visit by the two Deputy Ministers of Agriculture was intended to ascertain the operations of the appellant. There is no suggestion that they knew the legal status of the land that the appellant was 11