Judgment No. SC 13/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 469/13 Ref. HC 601/11 Ref. HC 9527/11 Having lawfully acquired the disputed land, the acquiring authority remained the lawful owner regardless of the unlawful purported sale and transfer of the land to the first appellant. The Acquiring authority was therefore within its rights when it offered the disputed land to the respondent for resettlement purposes. The respondent in turn had the right to accept the offer as he did thereby concluding a valid contract with the acquiring authority. The conclusion that the respondent’s Offer Letter is valid and enforceable is in the circumstances beyond reproach That conclusion of law renders both appellants strangers to the contract between the acquiring authority and the respondent. This brings us to the doctrine of privity of contract. That doctrine restricts the enforcement of contractual rights and remedies to the contracting parties, to the exclusion of third parties. The learned author Innocent Maja in his book The Law of Contract in Zimbabwe at p 27 para 1.5.3 graphically explains the doctrine as follows: “The doctrine of privity of contract provides that contractual remedies are enforceable only by or against parties to a contract, and not third parties, since contracts only create personal rights. According to Lilienthal, privity of contract is the general proposition that an agreement between A and B cannot be sued upon by C even though C would be benefited by its performance. Lilienthal further posts that privity of contract is premised upon the principle that rights founded on contract belong to the person who has stipulated them and that even the most express agreement of contracting parties would not confer any right of action on the contract upon one who is not a party to it.” The court a quo having correctly found that the sale of the land in dispute to the first appellant was a nullity and that the acquiring authority remains the lawful owner of the land in dispute, it follows that both appellants were not privy to that contract. That being the case, the doctrine of privity of contract excluded them from suing for cancellation of the contract between the first and second respondents in the form of the first respondent’s offer letter. 11