LOYCE LYANGA AND OTHERS VERSUS THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR AND OTHERS Draft Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA DODOMA SUB REGISTRY AT DODOMA LAND APPEAL NO 5149 OF 2024 (Arising from the decision of the Registrar of Titles given on 25th January 2024) BETWEEN LOYCE LYANGA………………….…………...…………………………….1ST APPELLANT HAMISI NG’ENYI……………………..…………….….………..………..2ND APPELLANT ESTHER SAMWEL…………………………………..…..…………………3RD APPELLANT NEEMA S MKUMBO…………….…………………………..……………..4TH APPELLANT GEORGINA S LYANGA…………………………………....………………5TH APPELLANT JESCA DANIEL KITUPA………………………………....……….……….6TH APPELLANT VERSUS THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF TITLES ……………………...….1ST RESPONDENT ABDALLAH RAMADHANI ALUTE ……………….……………….….2ND RESPONDENT MOHAMED MAWAZO MOHAMED…………………..………..……..3RD RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Date of last order: 26/11/ 2024 Date of Judgment: 13/02/2025 LONGOPA, J.: This appeal is made under section 102(1) of the Land Registration Act, Cap 334 R.E. 2019 against the action of the Assistant Registrar of Titles to issue a thirty (30) days’ notice of intention to register the right of occupancy in favour of the 2nd and 3rd respondents that would 1|Page automatically cancel and remove the caveat lodged by the appellant in respect of disposition of land in Plot No. 11 Block C, located at Ipembe area within Singida Municipality and register the same in favour of the names of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The appeal was filed an appeal on 12th March 2024 under the Certificate of Extreme Urgency with a Petition containing a total of five (5) grounds of appeal, namely: 1. That, the Assistant Registrar of Titles erred in law and fact by issuing thirty days’ notice to the appellants with the intention of removing the caveat and register the certificate of occupancy in the names of the 2nd and 3rd respondents without taking into consideration that the appellant’s lodged caveat was still valid and in operative. 2. That, the Assistant Registrar of Titles erred in law and fact by accepting the application for changing ownership of Plot No 11 Block “C” Ipembe within Singida Municipality to the 2nd and 3rd respondents and intended to effect the same 2|Page without affording the appellants the opportunity to be heard in relation to their lodged caveat. 3. That, the Assistant Registrar of titles erred in law and fact by accepting the application for changing ownership of Plot No 11 Block “C” Ipembe within Singida Municipality to the 2nd and 3rd respondents and intended to effect the same without taking into consideration that the said plot was the property of the deceased and the said transaction did not involve the administrator of the deceased’s estate. 4. That, the Assistant Registrar of titles erred in law and fact by accepting the application for changing ownership of Plot No 11 Block “C” Ipembe within Singida Municipality to the 2nd and 3rd respondents and intended to effect the same without taking into consideration the entire transaction was illegal and violated the legal procedures of changing the ownership of the same. 3|Page 5. That, the Assistant Registrar of titles erred in law and fact by accepting the application for changing ownership of Plot No 11 Block “C” Ipembe within Singida Municipality to the 2nd and 3rd respondents and intended to effect the same without showing cause to same. The parties appeared for viva voce hearing on 26th November 2024 whereby the appellants enjoyed the legal services of Ms. Agnes Zinga, learned advocate, the 1st respondent enjoyed the legal services of Ms. Kumbukeni Kondo, learned State Attorney while the 2nd and 3rd respondents had legal services of Mr. Majaliwa Wiga, learned advocate. The counsel for appellant, Ms. Agnes Zinga took up arms to argue in support of the appeal. It was submitted that appellants were aggrieved by the decision of the Assistant Registrar of Titles issuing 30 days’ notice with intention to cancel the caveat of the appellants that was lodged on 31st August 2023. The notice of the Registrar of Titles was issued on 25th January 2024. 4|Page It was stated that the caveat filed intended to prevent any disposition of the land in Plot No 11 Block C located at Ipembe Singida Municipality thus preventing to register the same in the names of the 2nd and 3rd respondents thus aggrieved the appellants, who preferred an appeal to this court. The notice by the Assistant Registrar was meant to inform a caveator on action intended to be done on the plot for which the caveat was lodged. The purpose of the notice was to let the caveator know and protect her interests on the land in question. It is true that under the law caveat ceases to exist on expiry of thirty (30) days’ notice since issuance. But the notice received provided categorically that the Assistant Registrar of Titles would effect registration of the certificate of title to the 2nd and 3rd respondents on the same plot of land. It was stated that the Assistant Registrar of Titles ought to have advised the appellants to appeal to the High Court in accordance with the provisions of section 78(4) of the Land Registration Act, Cap 334 R.E. 2019. This section requires that the person intending to cancel/ remove the caveat should have done the necessary as per the requirements of law. 5|Page Section 78(6) of Land Registration Act restricts the Registrar of Titles to register the plot of land where there exists a caveat against such disposed. It was noted that the Assistant Registrar of Titles knew and saw the existence of the caveat which put notice that such land was part of the estate of the deceased person and that there was a person/ relative who wanted to interfere with such land. Thus, there were solid reasons to believe that application for registration was tainted with some illegalities. The appellants reiterated that given prevailing circumstances, there was nothing compelling on the Assistant Registrar of Titles to terminate the existing caveat by his intention to register the 2nd and 3rd respondents as owners of the land. According to appellants no cogent reasons existed for the Assistant Registrar of Titles wished to register the land in favour of the duo without while they none of them was administrator of the estate of the late Henzerani Selemani in whose name the land was registered first. Further, it was informed that registration of the certificate of title from one person to another indicates that there was a transfer from that 6|Page original owner to the new owner. The appellants argued that when they requested Assistant Registrar of Titles to produce the documents submitted to him on registration of the land in question, the Assistant Registrar stated that he had not received any transfer documents. Having found that there were no documents of transfer thus purporting the registration to be first registration while caveat existed, it ought to have raised alarm on part of the Assistant Registrar of Titles that intended transfer was illegal. The appellants lamented that having known all these issues that there were no transfer documents and there existed a caveat, the Assistant Registrar of Titles failed to apply powers entrusted to him by section 79 of the Land Registration Act, Cap 334 R.E. 2019 that empowers the registrar to order injunction on the process of registration. The Registrar was entitled to enter injunction to prevent fraud or improper dealings. Despite all that knowledge, the Assistant Registrar progressed with the intention to do registration that was subject of administration of estate by a person who was not the administrator nor executor of the will of the deceased. 7|Page Moreover, it is stated that the appellants wrote a letter to the Registrar calling for stoppage of the intended transfer but they did not get the response. According to the appellant, it is well known that it is the administrator of the estate alone who can effect the transfer of estate of the deceased, the registrar of titles did not consider that the 2nd and 3rd respondents were not the administrators of the estate of the deceased. These facts should have moved the Registrar to investigate how the duo (2nd and 3rd respondents) got the certificate of title and whether they had powers to transfer the estate since the Certificate of Title was still in the name of the deceased. Sections 79 and 105 of the Land Registration Act, Cap 334 R.E. 2019 and sections 16 and 17 of the Registration of Documents Act, Cap 117 R.E. 2019 require the Registrar to call witnesses in the investigation of the transfer of title over the land. The Registrar of Titles had powers to consider all these provisions having seen the irregularities in the intended transfer. 8|Page The appellants received notice only informing them on the intention to transfer and register the transfer the title to another person. The Registrar had not invited not invited the appellants as caveators to show cause as to why caveat should not be removed. This is despite the 1st Respondent stance that it was not his job/ duty to investigate but the cited provisions are clear that he has such powers to investigate. It was reiterated that there are several cases where the Registrar of Titles has exercised such powers to interfere with the registration. The Registrar is given all the powers under section 79 of Land Registration Act, Cap 334 to investigate the validity of the documents submitted for registration but he did not do the same. Additionally, the fact that the 2nd and 3rd respondents were not the administrators of the estate of the late Henzereni Selemani and there existed a valid caveat stating illegal transfer of the title should have raised alarm on the Registrar before issuing the notice of the 30 days’ notice to the appellants. Thus, as a reasonable person the Registrar’s intention to proceed with intention to register the land while he was aware of all these 9|Page circumstances sorrounding the registration of the title was uncalled for at all. In conclusion, the appellants prayed for this Honourable Court allow this appeal with costs and that the Registrar 30 days’ notice be quashed and set aside. On the other hand, Ms. Kumbukeni Kondo stated that on the first ground of appeal regarding the validity of caveat, it was submitted that caveat was made under the provisions of Registration of Documents Act, Cap 117 R.E. 2019. The caveat was made and lodged to inform the Registrar that there were issues on that plot of land and that the plot of land had no certificate of title. The law is very clear on how the Registrar is supposed to act where there is caveat. It was submitted that caveat should not a bar to registration. Counsel for 1st respondent reiterated that section 78(6) of the Land Registration Act, Cap 334 require the Registrar to issue the caveator a notice to inform the caveator on his intention to register the land despite existence of the caveat. The law allows the action to be in form of notice 10 | P a g e as in the instant case the notice of 25th January 2024 stated that the notice is to inform the caveators that the Registrar is intending to register the 2nd and 3rd respondents as the owners of the land. The Registrar, acted rightly within parameters of the law and informed the caveators as required by the law. The right to be heard, the showing cause is only at the High Court of Tanzania. The Registrar of Titles acted within his powers to issue the notice of thirty (30) days’ notice. It is submitted that 1st Respondent had options to exercise, he was guided by section 79 of the Land Registration Act, cap 334 to issue notice to the caveators and as a result issued the notice to the caveators. It was reiterated that it was important to note that the Registrar of Titles has a paramountcy duty to register titles as per section 32(1) and (3) of the Land Registration Act, Cap 334. There was presentation of titles i.e. the Certificate from the Commissioner for Lands. The documentations can be called by this court from the Registrar. Further, on the second ground, there was no change of ownership. It was just registration of the certificate of title for registration in the names 11 | P a g e of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The 1st respondent received from the Commissioner for Lands. The Registrar of Titles issued a notice as per the law. The caveator has a right to come to court for appeal. On 3rd and 4th grounds, it was submitted that the caveat intended to protect interest in the plot of land in question. It was submitted that 1st respondent did not proceed to register. He responded to the application to register the certificate of title by giving notice to the caveators, the administrators of the estate can proceed to deal with plot of land. It is further submitted that 1st respondent only registers certificate of titles. The process commences from the Commissioner for Lands. All other matters were done by the Commissioner for Lands thus the Registrar was only acting in accordance with the law. On 5th ground, it was submitted that section 78(6) of the Land Registration Act caters for procedure for dealing with caveats and there is presentation of the Certificate of title for registration. The section allows the caveator to act upon receipt of the notice. It was not the change of ownership rather the first registration of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. 12 | P a g e It was further submitted that the 1st respondent had various ways of dealing with the registration of the certificate of title including informing the interested parties. Under the circumstances of the appeal, 1st respondent could have called all the parties if after the notice of intended registration, the appellants entered objection under section 13 and 23 of the Land Registration Act. It was submitted that as the appellants preferred an appeal then it is still, a proper way to do as the Court can direct the way forward. There is no registration todate to give opportunity to the parties to be heard. It was the 1st respondent’s prayer for dismissal of the appeal with no orders as to costs. Mr. Majaliwa Wiga, advocate for the 2nd and 3rd respondents stated that notice issued by the Registrar of Titles and the caveat were all made under the provisions of the Registration of Documents Act, Cap 117 R.E. 2019. The first ground on validity and effectiveness of the caveat, it was submitted that caveat was lodged on 23rd August 2023 thus active in January 2024 when the notice was issued. The caveat is not in operative as 13 | P a g e it ended in August 2024. It has been overtaken by events though the Registrar has not effected the registration. On the second ground, it was submitted that opportunity to be heard the notice stated that the intention was to remove the caveat and register the certificate of occupancy. Section 34(3) of the Registration of Documents Act, Cap 117 states that there is a right to institute a suit in the High Court to remove such decision. Section 34 of the Act, Cap 117 R.E. 2019, the institution of the suit is the appropriate manner to take and not appeal against the decision. The manner of presenting the matter was not proper as the appellants used an appeal under the Land Registration Act thus making the matter before this Court an appeal that is not the suit as the governing law on registration of documents requires. Under Section 78(4) of the Land Registration Act, Cap 334 there is an avenue to hear the parties by the High Court. It was submitted that the 14 | P a g e appellant chose a wrong way/ avenue of using the appeal instead of the institution of a suit. On 3rd ground, it was submitted that this matter requires evidence to show there was administrator of the estate. There is nothing on record regarding the administration of estate. The caveat does not indicate anyone is the administrator of the estate. It was preferred prematurely thus this appeal cannot be heard prematurely. With regard to the 4th ground, it was submitted that the illegal transaction on change of ownership thus the same would need evidence to be tendered. On 5th ground of appeal, it was submitted that section 32(3) the Registration of Documents Act, Cap 117 which is the basis of the notice was complied with as the notice was provided in prescribed form and there is nowhere the Registrar is required to show cause. They would have instituted a suit in which the Registrar would/ should have shown the cause. The counsel for 2nd and 3rd respondent urged this court to dismiss the appeal as the procedure adopted was not correct and in violation of the 15 | P a g e law thus it was too premature to be entertained by this Court as they ought to have adhered to the procedure. In rejoinder, it was reiterated that issuance of the notice was correct position of the law but the response after learning the irregularities is what comes into question thus mounting all this appeal. Section 79 of the Land Registration Act, Cap 334 allows the Registrar of Titles to suspend the registration of the certificate in the circumstances that reveal existence of fraudulently or illegal transactions. Also, it was further argument that section 32(2) of the Registration of Documents Act, Cap 117 provides that registration is paramount there must be adhered to safeguards to prevent fraud or misrepresentation. With regard to change of ownership, the appellants submitted the prudent person would be have inquired as there was a name of another person registered in the name on that land thus registering the same in the name of another person signifies the change of ownership. It was reiterated that the powers of the Registrar to investigate and enter 16 | P a g e injunctions intend to prevent fraud and misrepresentation thus should have been applied by the Registrar of Titles. It was appellants’ version that Section 102 of the Land Registration Act allows the aggrieved person to appeal instead of instituting a suit. Section 32(4) of Registration of Documents Act refers to use of the suit only where the caveat is withdrawn. In the instant case the caveat was not withdrawn yet but there was intention to remove/ withdraw it which necessitated the appellants to seek the Court’s intervention on the matter. It was the appellants’ submission that the appeal was lodged within the time when the caveat was still valid and operative. The Court process is the one which has taken long time to be resolved but that does not affect the caveat that was valid at the time of the institution of the appeal. Regarding the question of administrator, it was stated that the administrators were not yet appointed at the time caveat was lodged at the Registrar of Documents/ Titles. It was reiterated that this appeal be 17 | P a g e allowed with costs and the notice be quashed to allow the appellants to deal with the rightful interests to deal with the matter. Having heard the parties’ rival submissions, it is pertinent for this Court to address the validity or otherwise of this appeal. The appeal is against the decision of the Assistant Registrar of Titles to waive the caveat filed by the appellants against any disposition of the disputed land on account that there was fraudulent transaction intended to dispose such land subject of administration of estate of the late Henzerani Selemani. It is lucid that the appellant preferred challenging the decision vide an appeal under section 102 of the Land Registration Act. However, the 2nd and 3rd appellants opposed the appeal vehemently on the reason that under section 34 of the Documents Registration Act requires that aggrieved person should institute a civil case against the decision of the Registrar. These rival submissions touched on the appropriateness of the proceedings before this court thus touching on the jurisdiction. The main question is whether or not, preferring an appeal was proper in the circumstances. 18 | P a g e It is lucid that Section 102 of the Land Registration Act, Cap 334 R.E. 2019 caters for one of the mechanisms of challenging the decisions of the Registrar of Titles. It provides that: 102.-(1) Any person aggrieved by a decision, order or act of the Registrar may appeal to the High Court within three months from the date of such decision, order or act. In the instant appeal, there is a decision of the Assistant Registrar of Titles dated 25th January 2024. The decision of the Assistant Registrar was vide a notice entitled “The Documents Registration Act (Cap 117) Caveat- Notice under Section 32(3)” and its contents reads among others that the Assistant Registrar of Titles intends to register the right of occupancy within thirty (30) days from the date of postage or dispatch of the notice thus the caveat filed on 23rd August 2023 shall automatically be cancelled unless the High Court directs otherwise. The intention of the notice was to serve two folds. First, the persons who filed caveat were informed that the Assistant Registrar’s intention was to register the right of occupancy in the names of the 2nd and 3rd 19 | P a g e respondents. Second, that notice was a communication of cancellation of the caveat thus terminating the interests of the appellants over the land in question. The only exception was if there is a direction from the High Court stating otherwise. It is on those premises that the appellants have preferred this appeal under section 102 of the Land Registration Act. Thus, there was a clear decision of the Assistant Registrar of Titles impacting on the land rights of the appellants that was made on 25th January 2024. Such decision was communicated in writing to the appellants who filed a caveat. The decision categorically stated on the intention to register the land in question in favour of the 2nd and 3rd respondents within 30 days of the expiration of the notice. In essence, the notice of the Assistant Registrar of Titles would permanently deprive the appellants’ interests if any on the said land immediately upon registering the 2nd and 3rd respondents as owners of such land. This Court is also aware of the provision in the Registration of Documents Act, Cap 117 R.E. 2019 that creates another avenue for challenging the decision of Registrar of Documents. It states that: 20 | P a g e 34. (1) A caveat may be withdrawn by the person who lodged it. (2) The registrar shall, on the application of the person against whom a caveat has been lodged, remove the caveat if he is satisfied that the caveat is unnecessary or that the claim of the person lodging the caveat cannot be sustained. (3) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the registrar under this section may within thirty days from the date of the decision institute a suit in the High Court praying for the reversal or variation of such decision. The nature of the cause of action under this Act is based on withdrawal or removal of the caveat. It seems that instituting a suit comes only where there was an application against the caveat by the person against whom the caveat was filed or in the opinion of the Registrar the caveat is unnecessary or it is unmaintainable. Neither the appellants nor 21 | P a g e the respondents have asserted that there was an application against the caveat by any person. What is on record is that the 1st respondent received the application for registration of the land that is encumbered by caveat and in exercise of his powers the Registrar of Titles intended to facilitate and finalize such registration in favour of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. According to the notice, it is this registration of the right of occupancy in favour of the 2 nd and 3rd respondents that would automatically terminate the interests of appellants whatsoever over that land. There is no evidence whatsoever of existence of any application against the contents of the caveat. It is this court’s concurrence with the appellants’ submission that appropriate mechanism in the circumstances was to file an appeal before this court against the decision of the Assistant Registrar of Titles to register the land in question in favour of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. This Court has in numerous decisions have amplified that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal arising out of decision of the Registrar of Titles and that it is appropriate mechanism in challenging a 22 | P a g e decision of the Registrar of Titles in registration of the land vide an appeal. These decisions include Elidadis M. Rushikala v Samuel Malecela (Land Case No. 89 of 2023) [2023] TZHCLandD 16761 (9 August 2023); Nalha Rashid Hemed Administratrix of the Estate of the Late Rashid Hemed Khalfan & Another vs Salum Khamis & 2 Others (Land Case 254 of 2022) [2023] TZHCLandD 15758 (30 March 2023); and Imtiaz Hussein Banji vs Bilshad Hussein Banji (Land Appeal 101 of 2022) [2022] TZHCLandD 866 (26 August 2022), to mention but few. For instance, in the case of Imtiaz Hussein Banji vs Bilshad Hussein Banji (Land Appeal 101 of 2022) [2022] TZHCLandD 866 (26 August 2022) (TANZLII), at page 7 where this Court held that: The cited section 102 (1) of the Land Registration Act, Cap. 334 is related to a decision of the Registrar of Titles whereas any party aggrieved by the decision or order or act of the Registrar may appeal to the High Court. Conversely, following the same section of the law, the parties who have any grievances in land matters involving registered land are required to settle the matter at the 23 | P a g e Registrar of Titles and not lodging a suit at the High Court. The aggrieved party, in accordance with section 102 of the Land Registration Act, Cap. 334 [R.E 2019] can challenge the Registrar of Titles’ decision by way of an appeal before this court against the decision or order of the Registrar of Titles within time specified under the Act." Indeed, this appeal is appropriate and it was preferred well within the parameters of the law as categorically provided for in Section 102 of the Land Registration Act, Cap 334 R.E. 2019. Therefore, the provisions of section 34 of the Registration of Documents Act, Cap 117 R.E. 2019 is inapplicable in the circumstances. Any lamentation of unfitness of the appeal before this Court on account of not preferring a suit is not warranted for and deserves to be overruled. With regards to merits of the appeal, it was the appellants’ submission that the Registrar’s decision was a nullity for failure to consider existing valid and operative caveat; abrogation of the right to be heard as the change of the ownership did not accord appellants opportunity to 24 | P a g e challenge it; failure to notice that administration of the deceased estates was not involved in the change of ownership of the land; illegality of the transaction for non-adherence to procedures of changing of ownership of land. The respondents are not at one with the appellants. It is on record that 1st respondent reiterated that the Assistant Registrar of Titles acted perfectly in order as this was the first registration as there was no any previous registration. It was view of the respondents that 1st respondent was discharging his foremost duty of registration of the estate as required by section 33 of the Land Registration Act. Also, on the right to be heard, it was submitted that that could only be afforded by showing cause vide the notice served to the appellant. It was further submission that the Registrar of Titles was dealing with first registration of the right of occupancy in question for the land to be registered in the names of 2nd and 3rd respondents. It had never been registered in the name of any other person prior to that presentation of registration. 25 | P a g e I have earnestly perused the available records to be able to dispose the contentions by the parties. However, the available record reveals that: First, the appellant lodged a caveat dated 23rd August 2023 which categorically informed the Registrar of Titles that Plot No. 11 Block C Ipembe Street Singida belongs to one Henzirani Selemani. Second, there were attempts to dispose the land by transfer illegally without involvement of the administrator/ administratrix of the estate. Third, the appellants were in course of appointing the administrator of the estate. Fourth, the documents showing that one Henzirani Selemani was allocated the land since 1979 was provided for to the Assistant Registrar of Titles while lodging the caveat. There is nothing on record indicating that application to register the right of occupancy in favour of the 2nd and 3rd respondents was first registration and not transfer existed as alleged by the 1st respondent in the submission. Deliberately, the respondent did not avail any details of the registration documents allegedly submitted for first registration of the certificate of title in favour of 2nd and 3rd respondents. 26 | P a g e Generally, the Land Registration Act, Cap 334 R.E. 2019 is articulate on the caveats, procedure for handling them and the powers of Registrar to investigate on incidents that might prevention of fraud. Section 79 of the Land Registration Act empowers the Registrar to injunct any registration to prevent possible fraud incidents. It is on record that the Assistant Registrar of Titles was dully informed of intended fraudulent transfer of land in Plot No 11 Block C Ipembe Street Singida Municipality prior to the application in favour of 2nd and 3rd respondent was presented to the Registrar. The Registrar would have invited both appellants and respondents to make representations on the matter before issuance of the notice communicating the decision. The Assistant Registrar of Titles was the decision maker thus required under principles of natural justice to accord the appellants a right to be heard. The Registrar’s decision dated 25th January 2024 communicating the decision to register the right of occupancy in favour of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in presence of a caveat lucidly demonstrating possibility of fraudulently transfer of that particular plot of land demonstrate ingenuity of 27 | P a g e the office of the Registrar of Titles to part with ownership claim by the appellants without proper ownership question being determined. There is nothing on record detailing how the Assistant Registrar of Titles satisfied himself on the ownership question of the land having been duly informed prior hand by the appellants that there was an intended fraudulent transfer of the right of occupancy in question. Circumstances of the matter before the Assistant Registrar of Titles as a quasi-judicial organ would necessitate investigation as to the ownership of the disputed land given that appellants had categorically stated of allegedly fraudulent intention to dispose the land which belong to the estate of the late Henzerani Selemani by person (s) who is not administrator of the estate. Being aware of such caveat ought to have raise eyebrows as to modalities in which the 2nd and 3rd respondents got the land. This was the right thing to do than doing otherwise. The superior Court in this jurisdiction has reiterated the need to investigate on the land memorials to establish if fraud was being committed. In Melchiades John Mwenda vs Gizelle Mbaga & Others 28 | P a g e (Civil Appeal No. 57 of 2018) [2020] TZCA 1856 (13 November 2020) (TANZLII), at page 21, the Court of Appeal stated that: Having so done, we are of the considered view that the Registrar of Titles acted prematurely in invoking the provisions of section 99 (d) and (f) of the Land Registration Act. That course of action, we think, would have been appropriate if ownership of the disputed land was finally determined by a civil court. It is settled view of this Court the Assistant Registrar of Titles ought not to have decided to register the right of occupancy whose ownership was questionable on basis of fraudulent transfer of the same from the original owner to the 2nd and 3rd respondents. It was pertinent for the Assistant Registrar of Titles to enquire into the validity of the transfer prior determination that such application for registration would be effected as in accordance with section 33 of the Land Registration Act that interests of registered owner is paramountcy. Thus, registration of the right of occupancy without considering the averments 29 | P a g e levelled by appellants regarding the fraudulent transfer would completely determine the claim of rights over the land by the appellants. This principle on the estate of registered owner being paramount was lucid averred to in the case of Kellu Kamo Lucas vs Dr. Luis B. Shija (Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2022) [2023] TZCA 17924 (12 December 2023) (TANZLII), at pages 18-19, the Court of Appeal stated that: The side notes to the above section read "estate of registered owner paramount" The above provision means that a person whose name is written as the registered owner of the land referred to in the certificate of occupancy, owns that land to the exclusion of all persons except where a third party can prove that the land was acquired fraudulently or that any of the points listed from (a) to (g) is relevant to the land. Otherwise, the law on ownership of registered land, may be summarized thus; where a subject's piece of land has been surveyed and duly registered in the public land 30 | P a g e register, and such owner of the land has been granted a certificate of occupancy by the official land authorities, ownership of the land and all interests in it, for all intents and purposes, vest in that registered owner, and his estate and interest in the land is paramount. Thus, unless such subject's interest in the land is subsequently legally revoked by an appropriate state authority, in accordance with the law, or a court of competent jurisdiction in land matters consequent to pursuit of a due process of law, determines otherwise, the owner's interest in the registered land must, by all means in this country, be protected by both the law, and the courts. That being the legal position in this jurisdiction regarding the implication of registration, it is settled view of that it was incumbent upon the Assistant Registrar of Titles to consider all the prevailing circumstances to ascertain legality of the intended application for registration of the right of occupancy where there were rival claims of ownership through a caveat that pointed out on possible fraud in transfer of ownership. 31 | P a g e It was at this juncture where the Assistant Registrar of Titles having knowledge that caveat exists against any registration of that particular plot of land, he ought to have enquired from the parties hence accord them right to be heard which is fundamental. The right to be heard is part and parcel of the fundamental constitutional right of equality before the law. The principle prohibits any party to be condemned unheard. For instance, in the case of Anthony M. Masanga vs Penina (mama Mgesi) and Another (Civil Appeal 118 of 2014) [2015] TZCA 556 (18 March 2015) (TANZLII), the Court of Appeal noted that: It appears therefore that the respondents were not afforded the right to be heard (audi alteram partem) on that aspect. In fact, nowadays, courts demand not only that a person should be given a right to be heard, but that he be given an “adequate opportunity” to be heard so as to achieve the quest for a fair trial. See the case of The Judge i/c High Court Arusha & Another v. N.I.N. Munuo Ng'uni [2006] T.L.R. 44 32 | P a g e As the decision to register the right of occupancy in favour of the 2 nd and 3rd respondent did not accord the appellant with the right to be heard, the resultant decision is a nullity. The guidance is illustratively provided for in CRDB Bank Plc v Registered Trustees of Kagera Farmers Trust, Kagera Cooperative Union (1990) Limited and Tanzania Coffee Board (Civil Appeal 496 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 94 (23 February 2024) (TANZLII), at pages 11-12, where the Court of Appeal stated that: It is trite law that any decision affecting rights or interests of any person which is arrived at without such person being afforded a right to be heard, is a nullity even if the same decision would have been arrived at had the affected party been heard. The decision of the Assistant Registrar of Titles for Singida Region if not halted by this Court has far reaching impact in relation to ownership of the right of occupancy in Plot No 11 Block C Ipembe Singida Municipality. Such intended action must be stopped pending the determination of the rightful owner of the said plot of land by a competent court. Allowing the 33 | P a g e 1st respondent to register the right of occupancy in favour of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in prevailing circumstances would be unjustifiably wrong as there is a rival claim over ownership that must be competently determined before such right of occupancy is registered. As a result, it is settled opinion of this court that all the grounds of appeal preferred by the appellants have merits as the interests of the appellants were ignored without any justifiable cause. The notice dated 25th January 2024 with reference number LR/T/1170859/3 from the Land Registry for Singida Region regarding Plot Number 11 Block C Ipembe Singida Municipality to register the right of occupancy in favour of the 2nd and 3rd respondents (Abdallah Ramadhani Alute and Mohamed Mawazo Mohamed) is hereby quashed forthwith until when the rightful ownership of such land is declared by a competent court. In totality of events, it is hereby ordered that the 1st respondent (the Registrar of Titles for Singida Region shall halt the registration of the right of occupancy for Plot No 11 Block C Ipembe Singida Municipality and is prevented to register it in favour of the 2nd and 3rd respondents until such 34 | P a g e time a rightful owner is determined by competent Court upon affording both parties the right to be heard. Either of the parties is at liberty to pursue its right on ownership of the land in question to a competent court. However, for avoidance of doubts and sake of clarity, it is this court’s considered view that if no civil proceedings are initiated before competent court to determine the ownership question within period of twelve (12) months from the date of the decision then this order shall automatically lapse. The appeal is allowed with no orders as to costs. DATED at DODOMA this 13th day of February 2025. E.E. LONGOPA JUDGE 13/02/2025. 35 | P a g e