Judgment No. SC 17/18 3 Civil Appeal No. SC 470/15 The first respondent through his legal practitioners informed the appellant that he had purchased the property from the sellers and had taken possession. Undeterred by that information, the appellant obtained a default judgment against Nompiliso Maphosa and subsequently sought and obtained a writ of execution against her movable and immovable property, including the immovable property the first respondent had purchased. On receiving the writ of execution, the first respondent applied to the court a quo for an order staying execution pending the institution and finalisation of interpleader proceedings. He had previously obtained a provisional order staying execution of the same property by Lizhibowa Real Estate (Pvt) Ltd. The court a quo granted the first respondent’s application. Whilst acknowledging that the property was still registered in the names of Nompiliso Maphosa and Tarisai Matsveru, the court a quo reasoned inter alia that there were special circumstances entitling it to find in favour of the first respondent. The appellant appealed to this court against the court a quo’s judgment on the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The court a quo erred in law and misdirected itself in accepting a claim of ownership from a person who is not the registered owner of the property. 2. The court a quo erred in law and misdirected itself in finding, as it did, that a purchaser of an immovable property who had not obtained transfer by way of registration had a better right of ownership than the appellant whose rights emanated from a judicial attachment in execution, where the property in question remained registered in the judgment debtor’s name. 3. The court a quo erred and grossly misdirected itself on the facts in finding as it must be taken to have done, that there were special circumstances in favour of the 1st respondent, and in any case, that such special circumstances gave the first respondent the right of ownership of the immoveable property.”