STEPHEN KIAME SEFU v REGISTRAR OF TITLES 1988 TLR 127 (HC)

 

STEPHEN KIAME SEFU v REGISTRAR OF TITLES 1988 TLR 127 (HC)

Court High Court of Tanzania - Dar Es Salaam

Judge Mapigano J

19 July, 1988

Flynote

Land law - Land registration - Submission for registration of a duly consented transfer

B deed -Registrar of titles refuses registration pending sorting out of transfer problem

with the Prime Minister's office - Whether these are irrelevant and extraneous

reasons - When registrar can withhold registration.

Land law - Land Registration Ordinance, Cap. 334 - Aggrieved by decision of

Registrar of C titles - Power of High Court - S.102 (1) and (9) of Land Registration

Ordinance, Cap.334.

-Headnote

Appellant, a holder of a right of occupancy made a disposition by deed of the Right in

D favour of one Hamoud Abdallah Sumry. Thereafter the appellant sought for and

obtained consent for the disposition. He then submitted the transfer to the Registrar

of Titles for registration. The Senior Assistant Registrar of Titles refused to register,

contending that the appellant had first to sort out transfer problems with the Prime

Minister's Office. Problems to be sorted out were not disclosed except for the E

information that some kind of objection to the transfer had been lodged with the

Prime Minister's Office. Aggrieved by the refusal to register the transfer, the

appellant sought the intervention of the High Court. F

Held: (i) The appeal is brought under s.102 of the Land Registration Ordinance, Cap.

334 which allows any person who is aggrieved by a decision, order or act of the

Registrar of Titles to appeal to the High Court within three months from the date of

such decision, order or act;

(ii) the Land Registration Ordinance Cap. 334 has given no function to the

office G of the Prime Minister and the respondent erred in law in refusing

registration on account of matters that were irrelevant or extraneous;

(iii) once the appropriate authority has granted his approval to a transfer, The

Registrar of Titles will have no discretion to withhold registration unless any of the

H circumstances mentioned in s. 42 of Cap. 334 are present;

(iv) the Registrar of Titles erred in law and is directed to re-admit the

appellant's application for registration and dispose of it in the manner provided by the

relevant I provisions of the Land

1988 TLR p128

MAPIGANO J

Registration Ordinance, Cap. 334. A

Case Information

Appeal allowed.

No case referred to.

Patel, for the appellant B

[zJDz]Judgment

Mapigano, J.: Stephen Kiame Sefu, the appellant herein, was the holder of a Right of

Occupancy over a parcel of land comprised in Title No. 16507 and described as Plot

13 Block J. Ilala, Dar es Salaam. In May, 1987, the appellant made a disposition of the

C property in favour of one Hamoud Abdallah Sumry for a consideration of shs one

million, and the disposition was duly effected by deed. The appellant afterwards

sought for the consent of the appropriate authority to the disposition and on 4/6/87

that consent was duly granted. Then the appellant submitted the transfer to the

Registrar of Titles for D registration. That was on 17/6/87. By his letter addressed to

the advocate of the appellant dated 3/9/87, the Senior Assistant Registrar of Titles, the

respondent herein, declined to register the transfer. The reason given by the

respondent in that letter was that the appellant had not "sorted out the transfer

problems with the Prime Minister's E Office". The respondent did not specify those

problems, but counsel for the appellant has informed the Court that certain members

of the appellant's Office in relation with the transfer and that office had consequently

advised the Registrar of Titles to postpone the registration of the transfer. F

The appellant was aggrieved by the refusal of the respondent and has thus come to

this Court to challenge it. The appeal is brought under section 102(1) of the Land

Registration Ordinance, Cap. 334. By that provision any person who is aggrieved by a

G decision, order or act of the Registrar of Titles may appeal to the High Court

within three months from the date of such decision, order or act. And by subsection

(9) thereof the High Court may make such order on the appeal as the circumstances

may require.

There is only one substantive ground of appeal and it is that the respondent erred in

law H in refusing registration on account of matters that were irrelevant or

extraneous. The respondent has inexplicably not appeared at the hearing of this

appeal and it is reasonable to conclude that he is indifferent to these proceedings.

I am bound to accept the appellant's contention. The law of the case is, doubtless, the

I Land Registration Ordinance, and upon reading that Ordinance I have to say, with

respect, that I find no

1988 TLR p129

function that has been given to the Prime Minster's Office in the whole scheme of A

registration under that legislation. The power of the Registrar of Titles and his

Assistants to refuse registration of transfers, absolutely or conditionally, is provided

under section 42 of that Ordinance, which reads as follows: B

If it appears to the Registrar that any deed presented for registration is

improper in form or in substance, or is not clearly expressed, or does not indicate

with sufficient precision the particular estate which it is intended to effect, or

contains material provisions which are not the C proper subject of registration

under this Ordinance or covenants or conditions which do not in law run with the

land or are not capable of being annexed thereto, or is otherwise expressed in a

manner inconsistent with the principles on which the land register is to be kept, he

may refuse registration, either absolutely or subject only to such modification therein

as he shall D approve.

It is my considered opinion, therefore, that once the appropriate authority has

granted his approval to a transfer, the Registrar of Titles has no discretion to withhold

registration E unless any of the circumstances mentioned in the above section

actually obtains. So the respondent was in error at law.

In the event, I allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the respondent. I hereby

direct the respondent to re-admit the appellant's application for registration and

dispose F of it in the manner provided by the relevant provisions of the Land

Registration Ordinance. I make no order as to costs.

G Appeal allowed.

1988 TLR p129

H