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|21 Civil Appeal No. SC 165/16 me that the facts, as set out, establish that the first appellant was primarily instrumental in the removal of the second respondent from the mining site. I am satisfied that the court a quo correctly found that the second respondent was in peaceful possession before the appellants acted in common purpose in removing the second respondent from its peaceful possession of the mining site. (ii) Whether or not the second respondent was forcibly and wrongfully deprived of possession It is not in dispute that on 22 February 2016, after the press conference by the first appellant, armed police and officials from the Ministry of Mines moved onto the mining site which was being operated by second respondent and forcibly shut down its operations. The security team of second respondent was disabled and its employees were evicted from both their work stations and their on-site accommodation. These actions were conducted without a court order. All Mbada Diamonds employees were rounded up and their communication with the outside world was cut off. They were also subsequently forced off and barred from the mining site. The officials proceeded to switch off the machines and equipment which were in operation. The armed police officers remained on site and stopped employees from accessing the plant. Mbada employees were threatened with violence and were forced to leave the mine during the evening of the 23 February 2016. The third respondent, the Commissioner General