Judgment No. SC 18/18 Civil Appeal No. 137/16 In response to the unlawful transfers the appellants registered caveats against the properties. Shorai pursued her application in the High Court for the confirmation of the subsequent cancellation of the agreement between her and Dzingai, which would in turn cancel deeds of transfer number 3030/06 and 3031/06 which Dzingai unlawfully obtained from Shorai at a time when the property had already been transferred to her children the second to fourth appellants. The transfer was therefore purportedly from the first appellant, who no longer had title, without the involvement of the second to the fourth appellants who now had title. In her evidence to the court a quo Cecilia Kashumba alleged that, contrary to the repeated promises of a refund, the money debited from Dzingai’s bank account was never returned. In heads of argument prepared on behalf of Shorai in the court a quo it was suggested that Dzingai took ownership of the property sometime in 2006, without her knowledge. The court a quo correctly found that the judgment of 9 May 2001 had not been complied with, when it was relied on to get transfer from the second to fourth appellants, who were not parties to that judgment, to Dzingai. Dzingai failed to pay the balance of the purchase price within the time ordered by BARTLETT J, leading to the cancellation of the agreement by the first appellant. In spite of the caveats registered by Shorai and subsequently by the second to fourth appellants against the Title Deeds of stand 553, title was passed to Kambarami by Cecilia in her capacity as the executrix dative of Dzingai’s estate. These are the facts on which the court a quo made the following decisions. 1. That the transfer of the two stands to the late Dzingai was unlawful. 6