Judgment No. SC 24/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 455/16 the court a quo. His evidence was as follows. The appellant, which operates from offices situate at 27 Natal Road, Belgravia, Harare is an agent of Mediterranean Shipping. It has no offices outside Zimbabwe. The appellant’s role was to assist Mediterranean Shipping to execute its contractual obligation of moving cargo into and out of Zimbabwe. In this case the appellant only supervised the movement by road of the container from the Port of Beira to Mutare. It was not involved in the clearance of the goods with ZIMRA. He confirmed that initially the appellant had insisted on payment of the sum of $1750 owed by a Mrs Kuwaza in respect of a previous transaction but, on realising the error, had personally instructed that the container be released on payment of the sum of $80.50. That sum represented the handling fee for facilitating the necessary documentation and supervising the speedy execution of delivery by sub-contractors and service providers. He explained that in Zimbabwe it is customary for the agent handling the cargo on behalf of Mediterranean Shipping to recover the costs directly from the recipients of the cargo. In other countries the handling fee is paid by Mediterranean Shipping. Whatever role the appellant played in this case was in fulfilment of its agency agreement with Mediterranean Shipping. [11] In its closing address a quo, the respondent submitted that the question whether there was a contract was “of no real consequence” and that “there needn’t have been a contract between them because the scenario can be resolved by the principles of depositum …” Further that, as depositary, the appellant had an obligation to return the goods to the respondent upon demand. The respondent further submitted that it was clear from the summons and declaration that the claim “was vindicatory in nature, not contractual.” Accordingly, respondent prayed for its claim for damages and interest thereon to be granted on the basis of depositum. 5