Judgment No. SC 13/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 469/13 Ref. HC 601/11 Ref. HC 9527/11 transferred through fraudulent means. This is because the law prohibits anyone from deriving benefit from criminality regardless of the origin of the criminal conduct. I note in passing that the prevalence of fraudulent and corrupt disappearance of records and documents in the Deeds Registry has now reached alarming proportions. This prompted MATHONSI J to lament in the case of Cosmas Luckson Zavazava and Anor v Tendai Anania Tendere and 2 Ors HH 740/15 to remark as follows: “It would appear that conveyancing laws of this country are not fool-proof because fraudsters continue to exploit the weaknesses in the procedure for registration of transfers to defraud innocent property seekers. The leakages in the system have meant that cases of unlawful transfers of immovable property continue to reach the courts with alarming frequency. For how long will these fraudsters, who strut among communities, continue to hold sway, to make a mockery of transfer rules to milk unsuspecting home seekers dry in order to make a dishonest living? These shameless individuals bring the whole process of private ownership of property to disrepute.” In this case, the fraudulent disappearance of the original Title Deeds dully endorsed with State Title in the Deeds Office could only have benefitted the parties to the illegal sale of the State land in question. The fraudulent transfer was then perpetrated using a copy of the seller’s tittle Deeds without endorsement of State Tittle. This was meant to facilitate the bogus transfer of State Land to the appellant. In the absence of any other credible evidence to the contrary, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that the appellant and Cecil Michael Reimer were coconspirators in the perpetration of the fraud. This uncouth reprehensible behaviour cannot be sanctioned by the courts. That type of criminal conduct discredits both of them as witnesses. It betrays knowledge on their part that the land had indeed been lawfully acquired by the State prior to the sale. Otherwise, why act unlawfully if the deal was clean and above board? 10