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 34/18|19 Civil Appeal No. SC 165/16 (i) Whether or not the second respondent was in peaceful possession. It was submitted, firstly, by the appellants that the second respondent was not in peaceful possession as the special grants entitling it to mine had expired. The appellants’ argument was that, since the possession was unlawful, it could not be peaceful. It has been stated in a number of cases that issues of rights are irrelevant in spoliation proceedings. In Yeko v Oana 1973 (4) SA 735 (AD) at 739 G it was stated that: “The fundamental principle of the remedy is that no one is allowed to take the law into his own hands. All that the spoliata has to prove, is possession of a kind which warrants the protection accorded by the remedy, and that he was unlawfully ousted.” In the case of Chisveto v Minister of Local Government and Town Planning 1984 (1) ZLR 248 (H) the court remarked: “Lawfulness of possession does not enter into it. The purpose of the mandamus van spolie is to preserve law and order and to discourage persons from taking the law into their own hands. To give effect to these principles, it is necessary for the status quo ante to be restored until such time as a competent court of law assess the relative merits of the claims by each party… In fact, the classic generalisation is sometimes made that in respect of spoliation actions even a robber or thief is entitled to be restored possession of the stolen property.” It is apparent from the facts of this case that the first respondent, being a 50 per cent shareholder of the second respondent, was in possession of the mining fields through the second respondent. Possession in legal terms depicts both the mental and physical elements.