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 Further to the above, there is no record of any demand being made to the respondent prior to the institution of proceedings. The appellant does not suggest that there was such demand made. As at the time that he launched the application, the vehicles had been assigned to his successor at the respondent’s workplace. He does not explain in the founding affidavit why it took him close to a year before launching the application. Mr Hove, in his oral submissions suggested that the delay was occasioned by the appellant’s desire to be done with the criminal proceedings first before pursuing the recovery of the vehicles. Clearly this was evidence from the bar which is not only irregular but it was never suggested by the appellant that he delayed due to his need to have the criminal matter disposed of first. In any event, even if it had been true such manner of dealing with the alleged spoliation would be contrary to the well-established principle of that an applicant seeking relief under a mandament van spolie needs to act with speed in order to obtain relief. Despite being legally represented from the onset the appellant did not see the immediacy of action on his part as a requirement or necessity. In the affidavit opposing the application, the respondent took into issue the delay in approaching the court for relief. The respondent contended that the appellant had not acted expeditiously and was not entitled to relief. The appellant did not file an answering affidavit and can only be taken to have accepted that there was unreasonable delay in the launching of the application. In contrast, in Manga’s case the application despite having been delayed was preceded by numerous demands for the return of the items of furniture which were the subject matter of the dispute. In casu, the appellant did not address a single demand to the respondent for the return of the vehicles. 11