Judgment No. SC 13/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 469/13 Ref. HC 601/11 Ref. HC 9527/11 contract so as to enforce the remaining enforceable portion of that contract. Although this is not a contractual dispute I find the concept useful in this case to separate that which is enforceable from that which is not enforceable. Graphically, that conception in this case can be plotted and visualised as follows: Lot 3 Lot 2 Size in HA Lot 1 Lot 1 583.136 Lot 2 412.1091 Lot 3 79.4959 Cecil Michael Reimer sowed the seeds of severability or divisibility when he subdivided the original land into separate and distinct 3 lots which could easily be identified as shown above. What emerges quite clearly is that, the severance of lots 2 and 3 from the whole block of land cannot divest lot 1 of its identity. It remains intact and its gazetting remains extant despite the severance of lots 2 and 3 from the whole. In the result, the conclusion that lot 1 which is the land in dispute was identified and gazetted is beyond contest. What is in dispute is the correctness and validity of the process of identification and gazetting of the land for purposes of compulsory acquisition. 5