Judgment No. SC 22/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 291/16 GROUNDS OF APPEAL [13] The appellant filed a total of nine grounds of appeal. Some of them are repetitive. The grounds are cited verbatim hereunder: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The honourable court a quo declined to determine the appellant’s point in limine on the right of audience of the respondent prior to hearing argument on the merits. The respondent was, in fact, in contempt of the provisional order, and the learned court a quo erred at law in hearing the respondent despite this contempt, and misdirected itself in the position that it took. The appellant’s argument on the respondent’s contempt of court was not dependent on the contempt of court order which had been appealed against, but on the actual events, and the position at the time of the court hearing argument on the return day. The learned court a quo erred at law in not paying regard to those facts. The Honourable Court a quo did not determine the question of whether or not the respondent’s actions did constitute self-help, which is against the law and accordingly, in not determining whether or not the respondent himself was in contempt of the law and could not be heard. This was a fundamental error at law and a misdirection. The Honourable Court a quo erred at law in not applying the requirements of spoliation proceedings in this matter. The relief sought on the Return Day was spoliatory relief, owing to the respondent having taken occupation of the property at issue without due process. The learned court a quo erred at law in determining that the appellant was in unlawful occupation of the property by reason that the land at issue had been gazetted. In making this determination, the Honourable Court a quo paid short shrift to the representations and overt encouragements given to the appellant by responsible government officials. The learned court a quo, accordingly, erred in not finding that these representations, which were not disputed, and were relied upon by the appellant to its detriment, were material to the matter. There was, in this matter, clearly an element of estoppel following upon reliance on representations and advices of government officials on government policy, which element affected the question of unlawfulness, which question was the main determining factor upon which the court found that the appellant was in contempt of the law. The court a quo, therefore, erred in the finding that the appellant was in unlawful occupation of the property against the facts placed on record. Further, the learned court a quo erred at law in dismissing the appellant’s argument on a legitimate expectation on its part to be heard before it was evicted from the land in the full circumstances of this case. The learned court a quo, while acknowledging that government officials might have made representations, and given encouragements to the appellant found that it was duplicitous of the government officials to have given the appellant false hope without ensuring that the appellant was issued with an offer letter. The duplicitousness of government officials, just like bureaucratic inefficiency and bungling, does not accrue to the detriment of a citizen. The learned court a quo erred at law in, effectively, allowing the appellant to be penalised and adversely affected, in this matter. 5