Judgment No. SC 18/18 Civil Appeal No. 137/16 for the appellants cited the words of Holmes JA in the case of Oakland Nominees Ltd v Gelria Mining & Investment Ltd 1976 (1) SA 441 (A) at page 452 where he said: “Our law jealously protects the right of ownership and the correlative right of the owner in regard to his property… if the law did not jealously guard and protect the right of ownership and the correlative right of the owner to his/her property, then ownership would be meaningless and the jungle law would prevail to the detriment of legality and good order.” In view of the arguments put forward on behalf of the fourth respondent two things are clear. Firstly, that his right to title is directly and inextricably linked to whether or not the late Dzingai’s estate owned the property. As it did not, the case of Mashave v Standard Bank of South Africa 1998 (1) ZLR 436(S), is instructive. In that case Mc NALLY JA at page 438 C said: “…Roman-Dutch law protects the right of an owner to vindicate his property, and as a matter of policy favours him as against an innocent purchaser. See for instance Chetty v Naidoo 1974 (3) SA 13 (A) at 20A-C. The innocent purchaser’s only defence is estoppel. Estoppel depends upon an allegation that a representation was made by the owner or claimant.” Therefore, having found that Dzingai was not entitled to transfer, the sale to the fourth respondent was rendered void ab initio. The court a quo ordered that should Dzingai’s estate fail to pay the balance in terms of its order the payments Dzingai made to Shorai would be kept by her as rouwkoop. Cecilia Kashumba did not cross appeal against that order. In my view that order is fair and just as Dzingai and subsequently his estate occupied the property in dispute for 17 years during which he fraudulently transferred it to himself and his estate sold the subdivision to Kambarami. Section 9 (3) (c) and (d) of the Contractual Penalties Act allows the court to take such factors into consideration. It reads: 19