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 33/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 780/17 contention. This point was underscored in the case of Muzanenhamo v Fishtown Investments (Pvt) Ltd & Ors SC 8/17, where it was held that the claimant must prove on a balance of probabilities that he owns the property. The question to be answered in casu is whether, on a preponderance of probabilities, the appellants proved that they were the owners of the assets that they claimed. In a bid to prove its ownership of the assets, the first appellant produced statements of account for Mbada Mine which showed that some payments but not all had been made by Mbada Mine. In addition, both appellants produced detailed agreements concluded with Mbada Mine (on 15 November 2012 and 22 July 2015 respectively) which stipulated that ownership of the assets would remain with the appellants until the full purchase price was paid. It was the court a quo’s finding that the agreements were not authentic and that there was collusion between the appellants and Mbada Mine. It was alleged by the second respondent that the agreements were doctored by Mbada Mine and the appellants ex post facto and that there was no paper trail to show that the assets belonged to the appellants. However, no evidence was led to substantiate the second respondent’s allegations of collusion. The court relied on the bald averment by the second respondent that the documents were not authentic and simply took that to be correct. It is the second respondent that levelled allegations of inauthenticity and collusion. Consequently, it is the second respondent that should have proven the same. This position was succinctly captured in the case of Circle Tracking v Mahachi SC 4/07, where the Court held that the principle 10