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 of the equipment in dispute. In the event, the court dismissed the claimants’ claims with costs and declared the claimed property specially executable. The grounds of appeal herein relate in essence to the ownership of the assets in question. The appellants assert that the question of ownership is governed by the agreements of sale and that ownership in the assets has not transferred from the appellants to Mbada Mine but remains vested in them pending full payment of the relevant purchase prices. They also assert that the importation process could not impact on the question of ownership or proprietary rights in the assets. The appellants could be the beneficial owners of equipment imported permanently by Mbada Mine. Lastly, they assert that the finding of collusion by the court a quo was not supported by the evidence before the court. It is not in dispute that Mbada Mine had imported the assets that were attached by the Sheriff. The point of contention is whether in so importing Mbada Mine had assumed the right of ownership in the assets. It is also not in dispute that initially, at some point, the appellants owned the assets in question. Arguments on Appeal The appellants argue that the fact that Mbada Mine was the one which imported the assets into the country did not mean that Mbada Mine was the owner of the assets. They argue further that the court a quo’s reliance on importation documents was a 4