5. Conclusions For the reasons given, the Tribunal holds and declares that: a. the Applicant has exhausted all local remedies; b. the Applicant has been denied access to the courts in Zimbabwe; c. the Respondent is in breach of its obligations under Articles 4(c) and 6(1) of the Treaty; d. the sale in execution and subsequent transfer of the property held under Deed of Transfer 3673/85, known as the "Remainder of Minverwag of Clare Estate Ranch", situate in the Nyazura District, Zimbabwe (the property) is illegal and void; e. the Applicant's title to the property, subject to such mortgage as has been held over it at the time of the sale in execution, remains valid; f. the Respondent is directed to take all necessary measures, through its agents, from: i. evicting the Applicant or his family from the property; ii. interfering with the Applicant's use and occupation of the property; iii. subjecting the property to any further sale, disposal, transfer, encumbrance or similar limitation of proprietary rights or permitting any other person or body to do so, pending the proper determination of the Applicant's debt by an independent and impartial court or tribunal. 6. Costs With regard to the issue of costs, we shall first refer to Rule 78 of the Rules. Rule 78 provides as follows: "1. Each party to the proceedings shall pay its own legal costs. 2. The Tribunal may, in exceptional circumstances, order a party to the proceedings to pay costs incurred by the other party." In terms of Rule 78, each party bears its own costs except where there are exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of costs, in the interests of justice, against a party. The Tribunal has already construed Rule 78 in a broad and purposive manner in the case of Nixon Chirinda and Others v Mike Campbell (PVT) Limited and Others and the Republic of Zimbabwe ( SADC (T) CASE No. 09/2008) and held that there were exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of costs in the interests of justice against a party that brought before the Tribunal a patently frivolous and vexatious application. The Tribunal also made a costs order in Luke Munyandu Tembani v The Republic of Zimbabwe (SADC (T) CASE No.07/2008 against the Respondent when the latter abandoned a preliminary objection on the day of hearing. The Tribunal did not appreciate the fact that the withdrawal of the objection came at the last minute and that no prior notice of the withdrawal was given to the Tribunal or to the Applicant. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the objection taken by the Respondent was in the circumstances a frivolous and vexatious one. We consider that there are also exceptional circumstances, on the particular facts of the present case, justifying the award of costs in favour of the Applicant in the interests of justice. In this regard, we have taken into account the fact that the Applicant is an old man of 71 years who has had to bear an intolerable burden, financial, moral and otherwise, for some nine years in fighting against the power and resources of the Respondent, which had successively and systematically used all kinds of delaying tactics, procedural 8