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 36/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 279/16 The learned Judge in the court a quo exercised her discretion and took into account all the factors that are necessary in the determination of an application for a mandament van spolie. The delay in bringing the application was not explained in the affidavit and was only brought in in the grounds of appeal. Clearly there had been no foundation laid for the explanation that was set out in the grounds of appeal. In addition, an applicant to an order for spoliation has the onus to prove that he was outed unlawfully from possession. The appellant failed to discharge the onus. Apart from making reference to the police he made no specific averments as to the unlawful conduct which caused him to surrender the vehicles. In addition, to his knowledge, by the time he filed the application, the vehicles had been allocated to an employee of the respondent, and in these circumstances no relief of a practical value could be granted. The new possessor had himself not been cited and any dispossession of the vehicles in the absence of a court order would have in itself constituted an act of spoliation against him. In the circumstances I find that the court a quo exercised its discretion properly and I find no reason to interfere with the exercise of such discretion. In my view the appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed. In the premises the appeal is hereby dismissed with costs. HLATSHWAYO JA I agree 12