Judgment No. SC 22/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 291/16 absence of an order for the eviction of the appellant, the act of moving onto the farm was unlawful and in contempt of court. The appellant then prayed for confirmation of the provisional order and specifically stated that “an order of this Honourable Court is necessary in order to prevent self-help.” [36] In its heads of argument, the appellant conceded that the farm had indeed been acquired by the Government. It then sought alternative relief. It also argued that it had established the clear right to remain in peaceful occupation of the property until such time as an order of court was issued for its eviction. The appellant then proceeded to cite a number of authorities in which it sought to argue that it had the right to remain in occupation and that the first respondent had in fact despoiled it of its possession of the farm. REQUIREMENTS OF AN INTERDICT NOT ESTABLISHED [37] Once it had been accepted that the farm had been lawfully acquired by the State and that full title in the property now vested in the Government, interdictory relief could not have been granted. [38] In Airfield Investments (Pvt) Ltd v The Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement & Others 2004 (1) ZLR 511(S) 518 A-B, MALABA JA, as he then was, stated: “The appellant was not in a position to show the existence of a prima facie right of ownership in the land … because at the time it applied for interim relief all the rights of ownership it had in the land had been taken by means of an order of acquisition and vested in the acquiring authority. When the appellant lodged the application for the interim relief before the court a quo the acquisition of the land by the State was a fait accompli, all rights of ownership having been extinguished on its part …” 15