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|4 Civil Appeal No. SC 165/16 mining site. Mbada Diamonds was given 90 days to remove all its equipment and other valuables. Any further access to the mining site would be upon request to the first appellant. On the same day, the first appellant called a press conference to announce the new development that Mbada Diamonds and other diamond mining companies no longer had valid special grants or other rights on the basis of which they could continue with their mining operations. The first appellant further announced that those companies should cease operating and vacate the mining locations within 90 days. The first appellant specifically directed those companies to remove all their machinery, equipment and other related materials from the mining locations. On 27 February 2016 the first respondent brought an urgent chamber application in the court a quo seeking an interdict and a spoliation order. The first respondent alleged that when the first appellant issued a press statement, Mbada Diamonds’ operations were forcibly stopped by armed police assisted by some of Mbada Diamonds’ senior employees. It alleged that after the first appellant’s announcement, the police and officials from the first appellant moved into Mbada Diamond’s processing plants and shut them down. Mbada Diamonds’ security team was disbanded and evicted from site and other employees were forcibly evicted both from their work stations and their on-site residences. Security systems were paralysed. The first respondent also alleged that Marange Resources (Private) Limited the other shareholder of Mbada Diamonds, was in support of the initiative to consolidate the mining companies into a single entity and was therefore acting in concert with the first appellant to despoil the second respondent. The evidence on record does not support the allegation that