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|6 Civil Appeal No. SC 165/16 have been futile for the first respondent to seek a resolution to sue the appellants given the stance Marange Resources (Private) Limited had already taken towards the intended merger. The court a quo found that since Marange Resources (Private) Limited was acting in concert with the other appellants, it would have been futile for the first respondent to have called for a meeting to resolve that Mbada Diamonds should vindicate its rights. The court a quo held that the circumstances of the case justified the procedure adopted by the first respondent. In any event the court a quo also found that the first respondent, as a shareholder of the second respondent, had a direct interest in the second respondent and therefore had the necessary locus standi to institute the proceedings. On the merits the court a quo held that the appellants committed an act of spoliation on the second respondent (Mbada Diamonds). The court therefore granted the application for spoliation. The first appellant was aggrieved by that decision and appealed to this court on the following grounds: 1. The court a quo erred in not finding that, to the extent the first respondent had alleged facts which went beyond the question of spoliation and rather sought to assert a right to mine and consequently, of possession; the appellant was entitled to demonstrate the absence of the same and that, upon the court a quo accepting the absence of such rights, the first respondent could not be granted the relief of spoliation. 2. The court a quo erred in finding that the shareholder’s derivative action was available to the first respondent when the founding affidavit had not made out a case for the