Judgment No. CCZ 8/14 2 Constitutional Court Application No. CCZ 45/14 Streamsleigh was not cited by Autoband in those proceedings, it filed papers in opposition to the application for spoliation against AMI. An order of spoliation was granted and the learned magistrate ordered the eviction of AMI, and all those claiming occupation of the premises through AMI, from the premises. It would appear that there was no specific order against Streamsleigh, which, as I have already stated, contends it was in occupation of the premises at the relevant time and that its occupation was not through AMI but in its own right as owner of the premises. On the strength of the magistrate’s determination, Streamsleigh was evicted from the premises despite the spoliation order not being directed at it. Streamsleigh was dissatisfied with this turn of events and launched a court application in the High Court. In that court application Streamsleigh sought to have set aside the spoliation order issued by the magistrate. The draft order attached to the application reads: “IT IS DECLARED THAT: 1. The eviction order granted in Case MC 16435/11 between the respondent and African Medical Investments Plc is of no force, effect or application as against the applicant and its occupation of the premises known as Stand No. 2924 Salisbury Township of Salisbury Township Lands also known as 15 Lanark Road, Belgravia, Harare. 2. Any relief granted in Case Nos HC 619/11 and 2125/11 be and are hereby declared to be of no force, effect or application as against the applicant in respect of its occupation of their (sic) premises known as Stand No. 2924 Salisbury Township of Salisbury Township Lands also 15 Lanark Road, Belgravia, Harare.” The High Court dismissed Streamsleigh’s court application. Streamsleigh appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the appeal and set aside the High Court order. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and substituted in its place the following order:

Select target paragraph3