Judgment No. SC 22/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 291/16 granted, interference had taken place and the issue both at the confirmation stage and before this Court is whether spoliation had taken place. FIRST RESPONDENTS’ SUBMISSIONS ON APPEAL [16] Mr Mpofu, for the first respondent, submitted that the appellant’s founding papers confirm that what was sought was an interdict and not spoliation. Since the appellant had lost all rights to the land in question and, in short, is an outlaw, interdictory relief could not have been available to it as the law cannot interdict what is lawful. The appellant had sought an interdict pending the determination of the validity of the acquisition of the land and the offer letter. Once the appellant conceded that its land had been acquired and that an offer letter had been issued, it could not, in those circumstances, have been entitled to final interdictory relief. [17] In further oral submissions, Mr Mpofu argued that once it was accepted that no spoliation had taken place at the time of the grant of the provisional order, then that really was the end of the matter. If spoliation took place after the grant of the provisional order, such spoliation should have been the subject of a separate order of spoliation. On the question whether the first respondent was in contempt, he submitted that the matter is the subject of separate proceedings which are pending before this Court. It would therefore not have been proper to refuse audience to the first respondent in respect of events that are subject to determination separately by this Court. In the circumstances he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 7