Judgment No. SC 18/18 Civil Appeal No. 137/16 This is an admission that a party who has been given notice through a court order as required by the Contractual Penalties Act, need not be given a further such notice in terms of the Contractual Penalties Act. The seller can cancel immediately as was submitted by Mr Mpofu for the appellants. As the late Dzingai never lawfully owned and held title to the property, his estate could not alienate the said property. Cecilia his executrix dative could not sell property which did not belong to her late husband’s estate. The purported sale was also tainted by Cecilia’s misrepresentation in an affidavit that the property was not subject to any disputes. This lie was intended to mislead the purchaser into the agreement of sale, and facilitate its transfer. The first respondent therefore sold the subdivision to the fourth respondent through deceit. That cannot justify transfer of the appellants’ property to the fourth respondent. After title was transferred, and a subdivision was sold, developments were allegedly made to the land in dispute. It must be noted that the respondents’ counsel only raised the issue of vast and substantial improvements on the property from the bar on appeal. The alleged improvements were vaguely referred to, but were not quantified. No evidence was led to establish their existence and their value. Therefore, the claim for improvements, not having been properly raised or quantified, cannot be taken into consideration by this court. Nevertheless, even if these issues had been properly raised and quantified in the court a quo, the title of an owner is so respected that the rei 17