Mema Richard Sendwa vs The Registra of Titles and Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (DODOMA DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT DODOMA LAND APPEAL NO. 4225 OF 2024 {Originating from the notice dated23/10/2024 of intention to rectify the register on the landed property at Plot No. 275 Block L'Makole area within Dodoma municipality with Title No. 86025-DLR by the Registrar of Titles} MEMA RICHARD SENDWA (administratrix of the estate of the late RICHARD MAGAWA SENDWA)............................................... APPELLANT VERSUS THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES......................................... 1st RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER FOR LANDS....................................... 2nd RESPONDENT RULING Date of last Order: 6/6/2024 Date of Ruling: 10/6/2024 KHALFAN, J. The appellant filed an appeal before this court to challenge the notice issued by the first respondent intending to rectify the register applied by the second respondent over the landed property described as plot No. 275 Block Makole Dodoma with Title No. 86025-DLR. In her petition of i appeal, the appellant raised a total of six grounds of appeal which I will not reproduce here. This court suo motu raised a concern whether the appeal was not filed pre-maturely before this court. Hence, I invited the parties to address the court on the issue raised. The appellant was represented by Mr. Moses Masami, learned advocate while the respondents were represented by Ms. Kumbukeni Kondo, learned state attorney. Both parties filed their written submissions in compliance with the order of this court. I have keenly gone through the submissions filed by the parties. They essentially argued that although only notice of intention to rectify the register has been issued to the appellant, by itself, it constitutes a decision and an appeal that can be filed against the notice. Reference was made to the decision of this court in The Registered Trustees of Masjid Al- Azhal and Another vs. Assistant Registrar of Titles and another Misc. Land Appeal 4279 of 2024. Having considered the submission by the parties, it is without doubt that in the instant matter, the first respondent had, on 23/10/2023, issued 2 a notice to the appellant of his intention to rectify the register in terms of section 99 (1) (e) and (f) of the Land Registration Act [CAP 33 R.E 2019], (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant filed an appeal essentially to challenge the said notice. Both parties had unanimous opinion that the notice constitutes a decision capable of being appealed against this court. In terms of section 101 of the Act where the registrar makes a decision or order or does any act, then he is required to issue a decision in writing upon application by the person affected by such decision or order or act stating the reasons for the decision. I do not agree with the parties' arguments that the notice issued constitutes a decision capable of being appealed against. The reason for my decision is that, the first respondent only expressed an intention to rectify the register. This is a mere expression of intention. Therefore, the act intended to be done is yet to be done. My position is further fortified by the reason that the appellant could not supply the court with the decision in terms of section 101 of the Act which would have revealed the reasons for such rectification if any. See also the decision of this court in the case of Nassoro Rashid Hemed vs. The Registrar of Titles Misc. Land Case Appeal No. 45 Of 2023 (unreported). The appellant was required to wait for the outcome of such intention as expressed by the first respondent and later on apply for the copy of the decision in terms of section 101 of the Act and therefrom, an appeal could be filed to the court. For an appeal to be effectively and finally determined, the decision by the first respondent must be attached to the appeal in terms of section 102 (3) of the Act, and as I have pointed above, the notice by itself is not a decision capable of being appealed against as it does not reveal anything other than expression of the intention to rectify the register. I have considered the decision referred to by the parties in The Registered Trustees of Masjid Al-Azhal and Another vs. Assistant Registrar of Titles and Another (supra) but with respect, it was not explained whether the circumstances in that matter are similar to the matter at hand. In that decision, the contents of the notice in that matter were not revealed and the learned judge was satisfied that the notice in that matter was a decision capable of being challenged in the appeal. Suffice it to say, each case has to be determined on its own merits. 4 In the upshot, I find the appeal to have been filed prematurely before this court and the same is accordingly struck out. Since the point was raised by the court suo motu, I will not make an order as to costs. It is so ordered. Dated at Dodoma this 6th day of June, 2024. F. R. Khalfan JUDGE 5