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|23 Civil Appeal No. SC 165/16 represent it in a derivative action against an oppressive majority. In casu, the position is slightly different in that the situation to be addressed is that of one 50 per cent shareholder taking up cudgels as against the other equal shareholder. Neither holds a majority shareholding in the company but either is capable of frustrating the legitimate claims of the other by declining to participate in matters concerning the good governance and best interests of the company. It is in this sense that either shareholder can be said to be in effective negative control of the company. As is aptly reasoned by UCHENA JA, this scenario fully justifies the entitlement of either shareholder to proceed against the other by way of a derivative action in order to protect or vindicate its rights. As for the second issue revolving around the question of spoliation, I can do no more than adopt the succinct reasoning of GUVAVA JA. There can be no doubt that Mbada Diamonds was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the mining location in question at the relevant time, irrespective of the continuing validity or otherwise of its special grants and notwithstanding the supposed expiry of its right to carry out mining operations in that location. It is equally indisputable that the appellants, acting in concert, contrived to abruptly and unceremoniously deprive Mbada Diamonds of its possession of the mining location, forcibly and wrongfully against its consent, through the agency of the Commissioner General of Police and his cohorts. In the result, both appeals in this matter must fail. It is accordingly ordered that the appeals herein be and are hereby dismissed with costs.