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 34/18|20 Civil Appeal No. SC 165/16 It is not in dispute that the second respondent was in physical possession of the mining fields at the relevant time and was carrying out mining operations. Secondly, the appellants also alleged that there was no evidence on the record that the appellants had committed the acts complained of. The first appellant stated that the mere fact that he had called a press conference and stated that the possession of the respondents was unlawful does not in itself amount to spoliation. In any event he argues that he was not at the scene nor was any evidence given to link him to the persons who had despoiled the respondents. It is not in dispute that agents of the State descended on the Mine premises on 22 February 2016. It was alleged in the founding affidavit that ZMDC and Marange were the implementing agents of the scheme which culminated in Mbada Diamonds being removed from the mining site. The evidence given by the second respondent clearly stated that the armed police were hired by the first to fourth appellants. In my view it would be an absurdity to find that the police and the other officials would have acted in the manner they did without the authorisation and knowledge of the first appellant. The acts complained of were carried out immediately after the delivery of the letter from the permanent secretary of the first appellant stating that the special grants had expired. This was immediately followed by the press conference held by the first appellant reiterating that position and giving the second respondent notice to vacate the mining claims. It seems to