Judgment No. SC 22/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 291/16 the piece of land, namely a farm known as Subdivision A of Centenary, measuring 1 304, 5441 hectares situate in the Bulilima District until such a time as the applicant and all claiming occupation through it have been removed by order of a court of competent jurisdiction, 3. The 1st respondent and all persons claiming occupation through him be and are hereby directed to remove all cattle and belongings that may have been brought onto, or may remain on, the said farm forthwith. 4. The 1st respondent and all persons claiming occupation through him be and are hereby interdicted from interfering with the applicant’s business operations on the said farm. 5. The respondents shall pay the costs. INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED Pending the return day, the following relief is granted: 1. The 1st respondent be and is hereby interdicted and barred from taking occupation of, or bringing cattle onto the piece of land, namely a farm known as Subdivision A of Centenary, measuring 1 304, 5 441 hectares situate in the Bulilima District. 2. The 2nd respondent is interdicted from taking any steps to evict the applicant from the farm described above. 3. It is hereby declared that until this application is determined on the Return Day, the applicant and all claiming occupation through it are entitled to remain in peaceful occupation of the farm, and to continue operations on the farm undisturbed. 4. In the event that the 1st respondent or any party claiming occupation through him has, by the time of service of this order, taken occupation of the farm, it is ordered that the 1st respondent or any such person shall vacate the farm immediately and restore occupation and possession to the applicant. 5. In the event of a party referred to in paragraph 4 above failing to vacate the farm in accordance with this order, the Deputy Sheriff is authorised and directed to evict such party from the farm.” [34] As already noted, following the issuance of the provisional order, the first respondent filed an opposing affidavit. In that affidavit, he denied interfering with the appellant’s farming operations. He stated that the land in question had in fact been acquired by the State and attached a copy of the Government Gazette of 17 September 2003. He therefore opposed the confirmation of the provisional order. [35] In its answering affidavit the appellant then averred that by the time the provisional order was granted, the first respondent’s wife had taken occupation of the farm and evicted appellant’s labour force from the farm compound. It further alleged that in the 14