Judgment No. SC 15/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 266/15 practitioner and a client and would be covered by privilege unless it can be shown that the appellant consented to the letter being given to the respondent. The view I take is that there was no evidence placed before the court a quo that the appellant consented to the production of the letter to the respondent. The onus was on the respondent to show waiver of the privilege. This onus was not met and it was a misdirection on the part of the court a quo to hold the letter admissible without tangible evidence of such waiver. The appeal clearly had merit and that is the reason that it was allowed by the court. Accordingly, the Court made the following order: 1. The appeal be and is hereby allowed with costs. 2. The judgment of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with the following: “Judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff against the second defendant Tapiwa Joel Furusa for the payment of US$40 954.18 with interest thereon at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from 18 September 2011 to the date of payment in full. The costs of this action shall be paid by the second respondent on the legal practitioner client scale.” ZIYAMBI JA: I agree UCHENA JA: I agree Messrs Gill, Godlonton & Gerrans, appellant’s legal practitioners Matsikidze & Mucheche, respondent’s legal practitioners 11