Judgment No. SC 24/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 455/16 3. The court a quo erred in placing the onus of proving the terms of the contractual relationship between appellant and respondent on the former, albeit obliquely. 4. The court a quo erred in finding that4.1 the contract for the sale of the plastic bags between the respondent and Nedol Investments (Private) Limited was not a sham; and 4.2 the loss suffered by respondent, if any, was reasonably foreseen by appellant at the time of the conclusion of the alleged contract and despite the fact that the reasonable foreseeability was not specifically pleaded and proved. 5. The court a quo erred in finding that the respondent had mitigated its loss. APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THIS COURT [18] In its submissions before this Court, the appellant has argued that the respondent did not sufficiently identify the nature of the contract between the parties – in particularwhether it was one of agency or depositum. The terms of the agreement, be it agency or depositum, remained unknown. It further submitted that the case for the respondent was muddled and that the judgment of the court a quo was equally confusing and confused. Lastly, it submitted that whilst the facts show some relationship between the parties, the respondent had not proved the nature of the relationship that existed between them. RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THIS COURT [19] In its heads of argument, the respondent has submitted as follows. Its declaration in the court a quo made it clear that what it sought was the release of its goods arising from their unlawful detention. Further, that even if there was no contract of agency between 8