Nassoro

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA ^ (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND CASE APPEAL NO.45 OF 2023 (Originating from the decision of the Registrar of Titties, dated October 2023) ; NASSORO RASHID HEMED.... ...APPLICANT VERSUS THE REGISTRAR OF TITTLES.................. ..........RESPONpENT RULING Date ofLast Order: 13.03.2024 pate ofRuling: 26.03.2024 T. N. MWENEGOHA,J. The appellant above named is against the Decision of the respondent of removing the Caveat, registered over the land, described as Plot No; 30 Msasani Area, with CT No. 100042, dated 13'^^ October 2023, intended to be registered in the names of Nahia Rashid Hemed and Najla Rashid Hemed. Owing to the names mentioned above as the new registered names in the Certificate of Tittle forming the basis of this dispute, the Court ordered the parties to address it if the said persons are necessary parties or not in the case at hand. Both parties complied with the Order. Advocate Othiambo Kobas for the appellant, maintained that, this Appeal is properly before this Court and it has been preferred against a proper person who is the Registrar of'^tle, subject to Section 102(l)(a)and (3)of the Land Registration Act, Cap 334,R. E. 2019. He cement^ his arguments with the case of the Registered Trustees of Tanzania Agricultural Society (TASO) versus The Registrar of Tittles & 2 Others, Land Appeal No. 4 of 2022, High Court of Tanzania at Dodoma,(unreported). On the other hand, the learned State Attorney, Mariam A. Matovolwa for the respondent, insisted that, Nahia Rashid Hemed, and Najla Rashid Hemed as legal representatives of Rashid Hemed Khalfan (deceased). Hence, they are necessary parties in this case. They are to be joined as stated in Ngerengere Estate Company Limited versus Edna wniiam Sitta, Civil Appeal No. 209 of 2016, (2018) Court of Appealof Tanzania (unreported). I have considered the arguments of both counsels on behalf of the parties herein above mentioned. Both arguments are valuable in my opinion. Mr. Kobas is of the view that, the duty to implead the so-called necessary parties as far as this Appeal is concerned is vested on both the Court and; the respondent herself as given under Section 102(4)and (5), based on his interpretation. I respect his arguments, but before going into that line, he should have interpreted the earlier provision also, which are subsections (1) (a} and (b) of Section 102 of the Laiid: Registration Act, Cap 334, R. E. 2019, which states as follows;> 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 ofsuch decision, order or act: Provided that- (a) no such appeal shaii He unless the appellant or his ; ; advocate shaii, within one month from the date of such decision, order or act, have given to the Registrar and to the High Court notice ofintention ofappeais; and (b) in the case of a decision aiiowing or dismissing an appiication for first registration- (i) no such appeaishaii He except on a matter ofiaw or on a matter ofmixed ia]Af and fact; and (ii) ho such appeai shaii He except at the instance of the appiicantor a person who has given notice of objection to such appiication under the provisions ofsection 13:And provided further that, the High Court may, for good; cause, admit an appeai notwithstanding that the periods of iimitatidn prescribed in this subsection have eiapsed. Now, based on the provision of Section 102 (1) of the Land Registrations Act, (supra), there are no specific parties named that shouid be included in the said appeal.: The cases provided by Mr. Kobas, in his submissions are all distinguishable with the matter at hand, the same discussed on the need to join the Attorney General and the issue of serving a 90 days' notice subject to the Government Proceedings Act. The case at hand, we are not facing the similar situation, rather it is a call to join other interested persons, who are the beneficiaries of the intended decision of the Registrar of Titles. Therefore, they are necessary parties as argued by the learned State Attorney.: Leaving them is as good: as inviting multiplicity of cases over the same issue. Above all, In my opinidn, if we make a proper interpretation of the quoted provision above, we will see that, the Appeal at hand has been prematurely filed. There is no Decision or Order or act that was done by the Registrar of Titles, rather a notice was given of the intention by the Registrar to act in the future. The appellant did not even attach the complained the copy of the Decision, Order or Act of the respondent, giving him the right to lodge the appeal at hand as provided under Section 102(3) of the Land Registration Act, Cap 334 R. E. 2019 as follow;- (3)Every appeal shall be made in the form ofa petition in writing presented to the High Court by the appellant or his advocate and every such petition shaii be accompanied by a copy ofthe decision, order or act appealed against". Therefore, apart from the non-joinder of the persons so named as necessary parties in this case, still this Appeal is untenable for being preferred prematurely. ^ ^ In the end, the Appeal is struck out without costs. It is ordered. OF T. NoMWENEGOHA o > JUDGE Sv/ 26/03/2024 D 4 .