DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. Judgment No. SC 36/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 279/16 Once an applicant has established deprivation, it is incumbent upon the respondent to establish a defence. The only defences available in spoliation are the following: a) that the applicant was not in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the thing in question at the time of the dispossession; b) that the dispossession was not unlawful and therefore did not constitute spoliation; c) that restoration of the thing is impossible; d) that the respondent acted within the limits of counter-spoliation in regaining possession of the article; see Kama Construction (Pvt) Ltd v Cold Comfort Farm Co-op & Ors 1999(2) ZLR 19 at 21G-H. In this case there is no dispute that the appellant was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the two vehicles. In opposing the application however, the respondent had taken issue with the lawfulness of the continued possession of the vehicles by the appellant subsequent to his recall from the employ of the respondent. The appellant had contended that he had an entitlement to retain possession of the vehicles as they constituted benefits under his contract of employment with the respondent. For present purposes based on the nature of the opposition the court had to consider whether or not the respondent’s contention that it had not acted unlawfully was probable. The respondent placed reliance on an indemnity signed by the appellant on 29 July 2014 when the vehicles were taken away from him. The memorandum in question reads: 4