Judgment No. SC 13/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 469/13 Ref. HC 601/11 Ref. HC 9527/11 For that reason Deed of Transfer No. 1724/09 dated 18 March 2009 in favour of TBIC (Pvt) Ltd was a nullity at law and of no force or effect. That factual finding and interpretation of the law cannot be faulted at all as it finds support in a plethora of precedents, chief among them, Agro Chem Dealers (Pvt) Ltd v Gomo & Others 2009 ZLR 255 where GOWORA J, as she then was made it clear that: “… No person who is not the owner can transfer ownership in anything whether or not such transferor was acting in good faith or mala fide.” That interpretation and conclusion of the law finds solid support from RH Christie, Business Law in Zimbabwe, 2nd ED Juta & Co Ltd at 149 where the learned author states that: “An owner whose property has been sold and delivered without his consent remains the owner, as the seller cannot pass title that was not his.” On the authorities, a buyer who acquires property from a seller who is not the owner and without valid mandate to sell the property, as happened in this case, acquires defective title which is a nullity at law. A nullity is an event that never happened in the eyes of the law. As Reimer had lost all rights of ownership to the land in dispute, the sale of the land to TBIC (Pvt) Ltd was patently unlawful and a nullity at law. No valid title can be founded on an illegality. In Guoxing Gong v Mayor Logistics (Pvt) Ltd SC –2–2017 at p 6 this Court made it abundantly clear that anything done contrary to the law is a nullity. To make matters worse, as correctly found by the learned Judge in the court a quo, the appellant obtained dubious title in circumstances where the original title deeds with the endorsement of State title had been fraudulently removed from the Deeds Registry. It is trite that one cannot transfer ownership of rights that he does not have nor can rights be lawfully 9