Judgment No. SC 17/18 9 Civil Appeal No. SC 470/15 Special circumstances justify the setting aside of an attachment in execution on account of a claim by a purchaser who bought the property subject to execution when the property was free from any right of preference. Failure to protect the first respondent, who had without colluding with the seller purchased the property in good faith when the property was free from any right of preference would be unjust. It would allow the judgment debtor to pay his debt through the sale in execution of property he had already sold and had received payment for. It would enable the judgment debtor to benefit twice from the same property. It exposes the first respondent to double loss. He will lose the purchase price and the property, and be left with the remedy of damages against a seller whose property will have been executed against by other creditors. He will most likely not be able to recover anything from the seller. Such hardships should not be allowed against the first respondent who is an innocent purchaser. Mr Hashiti for the appellant submitted that the application of the notions of “equity”, “justice” and “fairness” should be sparingly relied on by the courts. He did not however take the argument further by arguing that the circumstances of this case do not call for the use of the notions of “equity”, “justice” and “fairness”. This omission does not help the appellant’s case. It must be noted that notions of fairness, justice and equity, and reasonableness cannot be separated from public policy. Public policy takes into account the necessity to do simple justice between individuals. See the cases of Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Beukes 1989 (1) SA 1 (A) at 9F-G and Jajbhay v Cassim 1939 AD 537 at 544. In my view, simple justice in the circumstances of this case demands the setting aside of the appellant’s writ of execution and upholding the decision of the court a quo.