13265 LAND APPEAL SCANNED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND APPEAL NO. 13265 OF 2024 BETWEEN G.H.N. TANGANYIKA BEACH HOTEL LIMITED......................... APPELLANT VERSUS REGISTRAR OF TITLES.................................................. 1st RESPONDENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.............................................. 2nd RESPONDENT RULING 06/11/2024 & 21/11/2024 A.MSAFIRI. J, The appellant G.H.N.Tanganyika Beach Hotel Limited claims to be dissatisfied with the acts of the Registrar of Titles whereby the said authority is said to intend to do rectification of the Land Register with respect to Plot No. 24A with CT No. 25749 and Plot No. 24A/2 with CT No. 30378 Kunduchi Beach, Dar es Salaam by cancelling the name of the registered owner named G.H.N Tanganyika Beach Hotel Limited and replacing it by the name of Her Excellency the President of the United Republic of Tanzania (herein as the President). The appellant has lodged three grounds of appeal of which I will not reproduce here._^J^- i The hearing of the appeal was oral whereby the appellant was represented by Mr Daniel Ngudungi, learned advocate and the respondents were represented by Mr Thomas Mahushi, the learned State Attorney. Before the hearing date, on 28/10/2024, Mr Mahushi for the respondents informed the court that they were getting difficulties in getting records from the Registrar of Titles. He prayed that the court issue summons to the Registrar of Titles to appear in court on the hearing date with the records on the matter. Hence on the date of hearing, Mr Waziri Masoud, an Officer from the Office of the Registrar of Titles appeared in court and submitted on the status of the records of the Registrar of Titles on the suit premises. Mr Ngudungi was the first to submit and he stated that the gist of the instant appeal is the right to be heard. That the appellant is the Title Holder of the two Titles Nos. 25749 and 30378 (herein as suit properties. That the Registrar of Titles, operating as quasi-judicial body issued the Notice of intention to rectify the said Titles without affording the appellant, the right to be heard. He said further that under Section 99 of the Land Registration Act, Cap 334 (herein the Act), the Registrar has powers to rectify but he has to 2 afford the party concerned, the right to be heard which he did not do so in the instant matter. Mr Ngudungi prayed that the court finds that the act of the Registrar of Titles to issue a letter dated 11/3/2024 is illegal and prayed that the name of the appellant be maintained on the suit property. In reply, Mr Mahushi, State Attorney did not have much to submit but relied on the records from the Registrar of Titles by Mr Waziri Masoud, the Officer from the Office of the Registrar of Titles. Mr Masoud told the court that the office of the Registrar of Titles received a request from the Assistant Commissioner for Lands asking for correction of the Register on reason that there were errors on the disputed plots. That the Registrar acted and notified the concerned parties informing then to bring an order of the High Court which prevents the Registrar from working on the request of the Assistant Commissioner as per Section 99(1) of the Act. That, the Registrar did not receive any court order hence he proceeded to work on the request and removed the names of the appellant and replace it with the one of the President. The Officer said that the appellant was afforded the chance to be heard as he was issued with 30 days' notice as per the law. 3 In rejoinder, Mr Ndugungi reiterated his submission in chief. He added that there is no proof that the appellant was given the right to be heard but there is only 30 days' notice. He said that the 14 days given to the appellant is not a notice to afford the appellant a right to be heard. Before the hearing and determination of this appeal, this court noticed that the claims of the appellant were based on his dissatisfaction on the "intentions" of the Registrar to do an act and not on the "acts" of the Registrar. The court asked the counsel for the appellant Mr Ngudungi on whether the appeal was premature since the appeal is basing on the intentions of the Registrar and not the acts of the Registrar as per Section 101 of the Act. Mr Ngudungi was of the firm view that the intentions of the Registrar to do an act comprise the acts of the Registrar as provided under Section 101 of the Act. This appeal is brought pursuant to Section 102 (1) of the Act which provides thus; 102(l)-Any person aggrieved by a decision, order or act of the Registrar may appeai to the High Court within three months from the date of such decision. 4 In the instant matter, the important question is whether there is a decision, order or act of the Registrar by which the appellant has been aggrieved and is entitled to lodge an appeal as he has done now. Looking at the grounds of the appeal, it is clear that the appeal is aggrieved by the intentions of the Registrar whereby the same has informed the appellant that he intends to do rectification of the Land Register with respect of the suit property. According to the submissions by Mr Ngudungi, the Registrar of Titles has yet to make rectification but he intends to do so. The Registrar of Titles has informed the appellant of his intention to rectify the Titles on the suit property. It is my view that this appeal was brought prematurely. This is for a reason that the acts of rectification have not been done/completed and the intention to do the rectification does not make the decision, order or acts of the Registrar of Titles to be appealed from as provided by Section 102 of the Act. Section 101 of the Act provides as follows: - 101-Where under this Act the Registrar makes any decision or order or does any act he sha/i, on the application of any person affected thereby, give that decision or order in writing and state his reasons therefor or, as the case may be, give his reasons in writing for that act. 5 By the above provisions, the acts or decision of the Registrar has to be in writing. As said earlier, the acts or decision does not include the intention. In the instant matter, the Registrar has expressed the intention, he has not acted or made the decision. By that analysis, I am not convinced by Mr Ngudungi's view that the intention of rectification amounts to act or decision of rectification. I find that this appeal has ben prematurely lodged as the court cannot decide an appeal on the "intentions" of the Registrar but the appeal can be lodged and determined on the "acts" or "decision" of the Registrar. I hereby struck out the appeal with costs.