Judgment No. SC 13/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 469/13 Ref. HC 601/11 Ref. HC 9527/11 Applying the law to the facts, it is plain that the disputed land was identified and a preliminary notice of intention to acquire was gazetted on 25 August 2000. The same preliminary notice was re-gazetted twice in 2003. The land in dispute was duly itemised in schedule 7 of the Government gazette according to the prevailing law. The land, having been identified and itemised in schedule 7, it fell squarely within the ambit of s 16B (2) of the former Constitution. By virtue of s 16B (5) of the former Constitution, the fact that at one time the notice expired or was withdrawn and that it was beset by other errors complained of by the appellant were of no force or effect. They could not invalidate or adversely affect the vesting of title in the State whatsoever. Credible evidence was proffered before the trial court that upon acquisition the original title deeds were endorsed signifying the perfection of State acquisition of the disputed land. The endorsed original title Deeds however mysteriously disappeared in suspicious fraudulent circumstances to facilitate transfer for the benefit of the appellant. Once the land had been identified and itemised under schedule 7, title to the land automatically vested in the State with the result that it automatically became State property by operation of law. In consequence whereof the previous owner was divested of his title to the land and stripped of all rights of ownership to the acquired land thereto. The learned judge in the court a quo was therefore, correct when he remarked at page 24 of his judgment that: ”TBIC obtained transfer of the remaining extend of Stuhm only in 2009. Until it did, it had no real rights over it. But most importantly Reimer who purported to transfer the property to it had lost all rights over the property, save the rights to a fair compensation. By 3 November 2005 the property had become State land by virtue of s 16B of the then Constitution.“ 8