Judgment No. SC 22/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 291/16 ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION [18] Although the appellant filed a total of nine grounds of appeal, it is my considered view that, from the heads of argument filed and the oral submissions made, only four issues arise for determination before this Court. The four issues are the following:(a) whether the court a quo erred in giving audience to the first respondent despite the allegation of contempt of court having been made against him. (b) whether the court a quo erred in dealing with the matter as a final interdict as opposed to spoliation. (c) whether the conduct of certain Ministry of Agriculture officials who encouraged the appellant to continue farming constituted an estoppel. (d) the effect, if any, of s 74 of the current Constitution. I relate to each of these issues in turn. WHETHER THE COURT A QUO SHOULD HAVE REFUSED AUDIENCE TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT [19] It is common cause that, following the issue of the provisional order, the first respondent opposed the confirmation of that order. He denied having taken occupation of the farm. He also denied having interfered with any farming activities or having moved his cattle onto the land. [20] In its answering affidavit the appellant averred that by the time the provisional order had been granted, the first respondent’s wife had moved three people into one of the rooms at the staff quarters. Between 1 August and 8 August 2014, notwithstanding the existence of the provisional order, the first respondent or his wife or other persons 8