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 Whilst the indemnity form signed by the appellant alleges that he surrendered the vehicles to the respondent on the instructions of one Majachani, the Officer Commanding CID Homicide, in his affidavit there is no mention of the role, if any that Majachani played in getting the appellant to surrender the vehicles. He implies that there was a heavy police presence accompanying the respondent. This statement is not amplified. There is no indication in the affidavit as to the number of police details who descended upon the appellant at his residence. He does not specify how many of the police details were armed, what they were armed with and whether such arms were exhibited to him. In short, despite alleging an unlawful deprivation of the vehicles, the appellant has refrained from providing sufficient material detail to the court and the respondent as would justify his claim that the surrender to the respondent was not voluntary but was induced by some force or threat. In addition, it is not suggested nor can it be contested that the respondent is not a natural person. In the founding affidavit the appellant refers to the respondent as if it was a natural person. The appellant did not identify the person who came in the guise of the respondent to uplift the vehicles. Apart from making reference to the police presence, there are no specifics as to the acts done by any of the persons who came to his house that would constitute unlawfulness. In effect the court is left in the dark as to what actually transpired on the day in question. The appellant would by this invite the court to speculate. It is not the business of the court nor its function to speculate. It can only determine disputes on what litigants place before it. The appellant has not met the onus on the allegation relating to the unlawfulness of the recovery of the vehicles. 6