why mls should win supreme court appeal!, page-12

More research (and further to my earlier comments regarding the estoppel doctrine)...this time focusing on the Namibian High Court Judge's determination that the agreement between Malakia and MLS was "null and void ab initio and of no force and effect" because "Reliance Investment Agencies CC" was not a company incorporated pursuant to the laws of Namibia.

There is relevant, well accepted case law in South Africa (Wilken v Kohler circa 1913 ):
"It by no means follows that because a court cannot enforce a contract which the law says shall have no force, it would therefore be bound to upset the result of such a contract which the parties had carried through in accordance with its terms."

WHICH MEANS IF BOTH PARTIES TO AN INVALID AGREEMENT HAVE PERFORMED IN FULL, THEN NEITHER PARTY CAN RECOVER HIS PERFORMANCE PURELY ON THE BASIS THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS INVALID.

In a recent Supreme Court of Appeal decision in the case of Legator McKenna Inc and another v Shea and Others (2009)1 ALL SA 45 (SCA) (?the McKenna case?), the Court of Appeal held that the transfer of ownership of a property had passed even though the underlying sale agreement was invalid!!

You can read this article on the Mckenna case for more details -

http://www.fluxmans.com/news/polPage.asp?id=37&pageid=119