same, and that, in any event, the first respondent had to locus standi in judicio institute the proceedings. The court further erred in finding that the first respondent had peaceful and a quo undisturbed possession of the mining concessions in its capacity as project manager and that, therefore, it was entitled to spoliatory relief in its personal capacity when the founding affidavit did not make such allegation and relief was not sought on that basis. The court further erred in finding that the appellant had committed an act of a quo spoliation against the fifth respondent when, in the circumstances, the appellant was not found to have done anything to evict the fifth respondent from mining concessions. The court further erred in entitling, authorising and empowering the fifth a quo respondent’s security personnel, with all its chain of command, to remain at the mining concessions until resolution of a matter that was resolved on the 22 February 2016 when the relevant statutory functionary exercised his discretion against the further extension/renewal of the special mining grants in question. The second, third and fourth appellants were also aggrieved by the decision of the court and appealed to this Court on the following grounds. a quo The court erred in finding that the appellants had committed acts of spoliation a quo against the first and second respondents in the absence of evidence or even an allegation that the appellants evicted the said respondents and in the face of evidence
same, and that, in any event, the first respondent had locus standi in judicio to institute the proceedings. The court a quo further erred in finding that the first respondent had peaceful and undisturbed possession of the mining concessions in its capacity as project manager and that, therefore, it was entitled to spoliatory relief in its personal capacity when the founding affidavit did not make such allegation and relief was not sought on that basis. The court a quo further erred in finding that the appellant had committed an act of spoliation against the fifth respondent when, in the circumstances, the appellant was not found to have done anything to evict the fifth respondent from mining concessions. The court a quo further erred in entitling, authorising and empowering the fifth respondent’s security personnel, with all its chain of command, to remain at the mining concessions until resolution of a matter that was resolved on the 22 February 2016 when the relevant statutory functionary exercised his discretion against the further extension/renewal of the special mining grants in question. The second, third and fourth appellants were also aggrieved by the decision of the court a quo and appealed to this Court on the following grounds. The court a quo erred in finding that the appellants had committed acts of spoliation against the first and second respondents in the absence of evidence or even an allegation that the appellants evicted the said respondents and in the face of evidence
SC%2034%20-2018%20ZMDC%20v%20Grandwell.docx