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 misdirection since importation does not prove ownership. To buttress this submission, the appellants rely upon the definition of “importer” in the Customs and Excise Act. Having regard to this definition, the appellants argue that the mere fact that Mbada Mine had imported the assets did not prove that ownership vested in it. This is so because the definition of importer includes an owner or other person. It is further submitted for the appellants that the agreements entered into between Mbada Mine and themselves should have been taken into cognisance by the court a quo because this was the evidence that proved the fact that ownership of the assets remained with the appellants. They rely on the reservation clauses in the agreements which stipulate that the right of ownership in the assets would remain reserved with the appellants until the purchase price was paid in full. The appellants further argue that it was a misdirection on the court a quo’s part to simply dismiss evidence from the agreements on the ground that they were fraudulent and executed ex post facto. The appellants also rely on a letter addressed by Mbada Mine to the Sheriff which indicates that the assets that had been attached belonged to the appellants as Mbada Mine was still substantially indebted to them. They maintain that Mbada Mine was involved in the importation of the equipment only as the holder of a registered mining location. Essentially, the crux of the appellants’ argument is that one can be a holder and an importer but not necessarily the owner of the assets imported. 5