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|8 Civil Appeal No. SC 165/16 from sixth respondent to the effect that its actions and presence at the mining site were for purposes of preventing unlawful mining activities as well as securing State property. 2. The court a quo erred in finding that the first respondent had been despoiled when no evidence had been placed before it, or even alleged, regarding any peaceful and undisturbed possession of the mining site or spoliation by the appellants. 3. The court a quo erred in finding that the first respondent had locus standi and or that the shareholder’s derivative action was available to the first respondent in the absence of evidence that the second respondent was unwilling or unable to institute the proceedings. 4. The court a quo erred in concluding that the appellants (including the first appellant) were effectively a single economic unit when their relationship is defined by law and each acted or exercised its rights as provided by law. Having read the record and considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellants and the first respondent, I find that, although the appeal is premised on many grounds, only two issues arise for determination. 1. Whether or not the first respondent had locus standi to bring the application on behalf of the second respondent through derivative action, or whether or not derivative action was available to the first respondent. 2. Whether or not the appellants despoiled the second respondent.