Judgment No. SC 18/18 Civil Appeal No. 137/16 transfer to him was unlawful and the subsequent sale and transfer to Kambarami was a nullity. R.H. Christie in his book “Business Law in Zimbabwe” states as follows: “An owner whose property has been sold and delivered without his consent remains the owner, as the seller cannot pass owner ship that was not his. The true owner can bring vindicatory action to recover his property from anyone including a bona fide buyer.” These are precisely the circumstances the first respondent and fourth respondent found themselves in and as a result the appellants contend that the court a quo, having found that ownership never lawfully passed to the first respondent that should have been the end of the matter and the principles of the rei vindicatio ought to have been applied with full force and effect. The land should have been returned to its rightful owners. The late Dzingai failed to pay and finalize the sale agreement in terms of the judgment of 9 May 2001. He could not therefore rely on a judgment he had not complied with to enforce the agreement of sale. He could not seek transfer of the property to himself without complying with the legal requirements of a contract of sale. He in fact admitted that, he did not pay the full purchase price after BARTLETT J’s judgment. That entitled the first appellant to an immediate cancellation of the agreement as she did on 4 June 2002. In its own order giving a further grace period as BARLETT J had previously done the court a quo had in para 5 of its order ordered that if payment was not made as per its order the appellants would be entitled to “forthwith have the right to declare in writing, the immediate and automatic cancellation of the Deed of Sale aforesaid and, without prejudice to any other rights they might have at law”. 16