The court held that in this matter, it was common cause that a South African Court had jurisdiction to decide ownership of the Sable based on the cession agreement. The court found that the cession agreement had been signed by the attorney, acting under the authority of the first respondent. The court reasoned that a cedent can only transfer rights that it has and no more, in this matter the applicant had none. The court held that the issue of jusrisdiction is rather to be dealt in the locus solutionis and the forum contractus. In this matter the performance had been effected in Kimberley and this act vests jurisdiction in this court. The court held that the delivery of the Sable was also within the court’s jusrisdiction. The court held that the evidence proved that the cession agreement was a out and out cession. The court held that the respondents had no bona fide defence on the issue of ownership of the Sable, thus the defence of lis pendis failed. The court held that it was common cause that the applicant had paid the purchase price and this had been acknowledged by the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAW). All ZAWA correspondence make mention of the applicant as the owner and the second repondent as the applicant’s agent. The court held that it was common cause that delivery was given to the applicant and not the respondents.