Judgment No. SC 18/18 Civil Appeal No. 137/16 3. The court a quo erred in granting relief which had not been sought from it and which the parties had not addressed their argument to and so erred in adopting a course which is incapable of resolving the dispute between the parties. 4. The court a quo erred in coming to the conclusion that the agreement between first appellant and the late Dzingai Kashumba had not been validly cancelled and erred in ignoring an ex nunc cancellation of 4 June 2002. This appeal raises two issues: 1. Whether or not a court can grant an order not sought by the parties. 2. Whether or not the law calls for the strict application of the rei vindicatio? I will address each issue in turn. 1. Whether or not a court can grant an order not sought by the parties? Mr Mpofu, for the appellants, citing authorities, which will be analysed below, submitted that the court a quo erred and misdirected itself when it granted relief which had not been sought by either party. Mr Uriri for the first respondent and Mr Mapuranga for the fourth respondent supported the court a quo’s decision without legally establishing the court a quo’s authority to grant orders not sought by the parties. The fact that the court a quo granted orders not sought by the parties can be demonstrated by comparing the orders sought by the parties and the orders granted by the court a quo. 8