Judgment No. SC 22/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 291/16 [10] In its heads of argument a quo the appellant conceded that the farm had indeed been listed for acquisition and gazetted in 2003. The appellant consequently sought alternative relief in terms of a draft order it filed with the court. Further the appellant submitted that the first respondent was in contempt of the order issued by the court and that consequently an application seeking an order declaring him to be in contempt had been filed. It contended that as the first respondent continued to be in contempt of court he should therefore not be heard before purging such contempt. The appellant also submitted that it had the right to remain in peaceful occupation of the property until such time as an order was made by a competent court for its eviction. In short it submitted that by resorting to self-help, the first respondent had committed an act of spoliation. [11] In his heads of argument a quo the first respondent submitted that the appellant, having lost title to the property, had no locus standi to show the existence of a prima facie right and that a court of law cannot grant an order the effect of which is to authorise the appellant to remain on gazetted land. [12] In its judgment, the court a quo came to the conclusion, firstly, that it could not refuse the first respondent audience because the order of contempt granted against him had been appealed against and that such appeal was pending. Secondly, it found that the appellant, being in clear breach of the law as it remains in occupation of gazetted land without lawful authority, was not able to establish the existence of a clear right necessary in proceedings where a final interdict is sought. Accordingly it discharged the provisional order. Hence the present appeal. 4