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 33/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 780/17 It was the second respondent’s argument that Mbada Mines had made itself out to be the owner by importing the assets on a permanent basis and that the letter from ZIMRA directing that the assets were not to be sold implied that ZIMRA was under the impression that the assets belonged to Mbada Mine. The second respondent contends that this impression could only be drawn from a representation by Mbada Mine that the assets belonged to it and no one else. While it may be a fact that Mbada Mine imported the assets on a permanent basis, that fact does not automatically mean that it did so on the premise that it was the owner of those assets. Nothing was advanced to substantiate the argument that permanent importation is only available to the owner and not an importer who does not own the assets. Indeed, nothing to buttress such argument was placed either before the court a quo or before this Court. In the event, the argument cannot succeed. Authenticity of Agreements and Proof of Ownership I now deal with the findings of the court a quo that there was collusion between Mbada and the appellants and that the contracts between Mbada and the appellants were mere shams. This will determine the critical issue as to whether or not the appellants were able to prove that they were the owners of the assets in question. It is trite law that in interpleader proceedings the claimant has to set out facts and evidence which constitute proof of ownership of the assets which are the subject of 9