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|22 Civil Appeal No. SC 165/16 of Police, confirmed that the police had acted in the manner complained of. In my view, in spite of the protestations of the third respondent, the police would not have acted in such a manner if they had not been called upon to do so by the appellants, who stood to benefit from the unlawful removal of the second respondent. There is no doubt in my mind that these facts show that the second respondent was removed without its consent. The removal was unlawful as it was carried out without due process. The court a quo thus correctly found that the second respondent had been unlawfully removed without its consent. It seems to me that the factors which must be proved in order to grant spoliatory relief had been met and the court a quo was correct to grant the order as prayed. PATEL JA: I have read the separate opinions rendered by UCHENA JA and GUVAVA JA on the two issues for determination in this matter. I fully endorse and concur with their respective conclusions for the following reasons. As regards the first issue, the question of locus standi a quo, the authorities cited above relate primarily to the situation where an aggrieved minority in a company seeks to