Judgment No. SC 13/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 469/13 Ref. HC 601/11 Ref. HC 9527/11 acquiring authority, a sub-divisional permit granted to the first appellant who did not own the land was a nullity ab initio and of no force or effect. A perusal of case law shows that there is no need for the court to pronounce or declare something which is a nullity as being null and void as held in the well-known case of Mcfoy v United Africa Co. Ltd [1961] 3 ALL ER 1169 (PC) at 1172. In that case Lord DENNING had occasion to remark that: “If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad but incurably bad. There is no need for an order of the court to be set aside. It is automatically null and void without more ado, although it is sometimes convenient to have the court declare it to be so. And every proceeding which is founded on it is also bad and incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse.” (Emphasis provided). It is plain common sense that a permit granted to the first appellant to subdivide land which did not belong to it was a nullity which did not bind anyone. For that reason although it was desirable for the court a quo to pronounce its verdict on the objection raised by the first appellant, there was no strict requirement to do so at law. It is an established fact that the land in question is registered as agricultural land in the name of the acquiring authority. In the absence of any evidence as to how it ceased to be agricultural land, the registration in the Deeds Office prevails. In the case of Lilifort Toro v Vodge Investments (Pvt) Ltd SC 15/2017, there was clear evidence as to how the land had ceased to be agricultural land to become urban land by virtue of Proclamation 3 of 2012, S.I 115 of 2012. This was followed up by an official hand over of the land through a letter dated 10 June 2013. 17