Judgment No. SC 54/2018 Case No. SC 228/14 Turning to the specific terms of the provisional order granted by the court a quo, Mr Girach submits that the interim relief granted pending the determination of the matter is the same as the final relief sought by the respondent. Moreover, it consists of a mandamus coupled with an interdict and is final and definitive in effect, thereby rendering moot any further determination on the return date. The interim relief granted ordered the appellant to immediately restore water supply to the respondent’s premises, and interdicted the appellant from interfering with the respondent’s possession of the premises by interfering with or terminating his water supply. The final order sought declared the termination of the respondent’s water supply on the basis of a disputed water bill in the absence of a court order to be unlawful self-help, and interdicted the appellant from interfering with, disrupting or terminating the respondent’s water supply without a court order. At first glance, the terms of the interim relief granted and the final order sought appear to be substantially similar. On closer scrutiny, however, I am able to discern certain critical differences in both the wording and effect of the two orders. In particular, paragraph 1 of the interim relief was designed to restore the status quo ante; paragraph 1 of the final order is essentially declaratory of the alleged unlawfulness of the appellant’s conduct in the absence of a court order. Again, paragraph 2 of the interim relief granted interdicts the appellant from any interference pending the finalisation of the matter; paragraph 2 of the final order restrains the appellant from interference without the authority of a court order. DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS e-mail: veritas@mango.zw; website: www.veritaszim.net Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. 8