ABDULKADAR A. MOHAMEDALI v REGISTRAR OF TITLES 1992 TLR 21 (CA)

 ABDULKADAR A. MOHAMEDALI v REGISTRAR OF TITLES 1992 TLR 21 (CA)

Court Court of Appeal of Tanzania - Dar Es Salaam

Judge Ramadhani JJA, Mnzavas JJA, Mapigano Ag. JA

28 February 1992 G

Flynote

Land Law - Land registration - Whether or not the Registrar of Titles has power

under Cap. 334 to register a sub-title.

-Headnote

The appellant had applied, under Cap. 334, to the High Court seeking for orders that a

deed of conveyance between him and one A.H. Shamshudin be registered and a H

"sub-title" be issued conferring rights over Plot No. 266 Alan Road, Upanga CT. No.

186181/46 to him. The Registrar submitted that there was no provision in the Land

Registration Ordinance, Cap. 334, that empowered the Registrar of Titles to register

appellant's "sub-titles". I

1992 TLR p22

MNZAVAS JJA, RAMADHANI JJA, MAPIGANO AG. JA

The High Court judge upheld the Registrar's submission and dismissed the application

A as incompetent. The appellant sought the assistance of the Court of Appeal.

Held: The deed of conveyance between the vendor and the appellant was a registrable

B document under section 8(1)(b) of the Registration of Document's Ordinance, Cap.

117, but this argument was not conversed before the High Court.

Case Information

Appeal dismissed. C

Ngasala, for Appellants

Registrar of Titles, appeared in person.

[zJDz]Judgment

Mnzavas and Ramadhani, JJ.A and Mapigano, Ag. J.A.: This is an appeal against D

the ruling of the High Court (Rubama, J.), dated 30/4/90.

The appellant/applicant had applied to the High Court seeking for orders that a deed

of conveyance between him and one A.H. Shamshudin be registered and a "sub-title"

be issued conferring rights over Plot No. 266 Alkham Road, Upanga CT. No. E

186181/46 to him.

In support of the application in the High Court the appellant/applicant relied on the

provisions of the Land Registration Ordinance, Cap. 334 of the Laws.

In the High Court the respondent, the Registrar of Titles, submitted that there was no

F provision under the Land Registration Ordinance Cap. 334, that empowered the

Registrar of Titles to register appellant's "sub-titles".

In his ruling the learned judge said, inter alia:

G I have gone through the law (Cap. 334) under which this application has been

made and have not been able to identify any provision under which this Court could

order the respondent to register the applicant's sub-title.

The learned judge then proceeded and dismissed the application as incompetent. H

When the appeal came up for hearing on 26/11/91 and after hearing Mr. Ngasala,

learned counsel for the appellant, it was glaringly clear to us that Mr. Ngasala had not

I made sufficient research on the law pertaining to real property. We accordingly

1992 TLR p23

adjourned the matter and gave the learned counsel three days to do some research. A

When the appeal came up again for hearing Mr. Ngasala abandoned his earlier

argument that the learned judge should have invoked his inherent powers under

section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code and grant the application. He now argued that

the deed B of conveyance between the appellant/applicant and the vendor in

connection with Plot No. 266 Alkhan Road, Upanga, CT. No. 186181/46 should be

registered under the Registration of Documents Ordinance, Cap. 117 of the laws.

With respect to the learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant the application before

C the High Court was based under the Land Registration Ordinance, Cap. 334 of the

laws. As we have already mentioned above the learned judge held that the application

was incompetent, based as it was, under Cap. 334 of the laws.

With respect we agree with the finding of the learned judge that Cap. 334 deals with

D land registration and was inapplicable on the facts of this case which concerned

limitation of the vendor's interest over the property situated on the above mentioned

plot.

We agree with Mr. Ngasala that the deed of conveyance between the vendor and the

appellant was a registrable document under section 8 (1) (b) of the Registration of E

Documents Ordinance, Cap. 117, but this argument was not canvassed before the

High Court.

In the event we dismiss the appeal with costs. The appellant/ applicant is at liberty to

make a fresh application before the Registrar of Documents to seek registration of the

deed of conveyance between him and the vendor under the Registration of F

Documents Ordinance, Cap. 117.

G Appeal dismissed.

1992 TLR p24

A