Judgment No. SC 18/18 Civil Appeal No. 137/16 2. That the late Dzingai and his estate did not pay the full purchase price. 3. That the donation of the two stands by the first appellant to the second, third, and fourth appellants was lawful. 4. That the sale of stand 553 to the fourth respondent was unlawful. After making these findings the court a quo surprisingly gave Cecilia Kashumba a grace period of thirty days within which to settle the outstanding debt. Dzingai’s estate and Kambarami, the fourth respondent were allowed to remain in possession of the two properties during the grace period. The order further provided that if Cecilia Kashumba failed to pay by the deadline the property would be returned to the appellants and all monies paid to date would be forfeited by the deceased estate. The appellants appealed to this court against the decision of the court a quo. The appeal is based on the following grounds of appeal. 1. Having come to the conclusion that first and fourth respondents had obtained title irregularly and without lawful cause the court a quo erred in not finding that the requisites for an action rei vindication had been met. 2. Having come to the conclusion that first appellant had been entitled to donate the property to second to fourth appellants and had in fact done so, the court a quo erred in granting consequential relief which completely ignored the rights of the true owners of the property. 7