Thomas Christopher Manga vs Registrar of Titles and Another (Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 24236 of 2025) [2026] TZHC 3088 (12 June 2026)

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA DAR ES SALAAM SUB - REGISTRY AT DAR ES SALAAM MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CAUSE NO 24236/2025 REF 202509231000024236 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR PREROGATIVE ORDERS OF MANDAMUS AND IN THE MATTER OF LAW REFORM (FATAL ACCIDENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT CAP 310 R.E. 2023 AND IN THE MATTER OF LAW REFORM (FATAL ACCIDENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE AND FEES RULES, 2014. AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATIO N TO COMPEL THE 1st RESPONDENT TO ISSUE A DECISION FOR THE RECTIFICATION OF THE LAND REGISTER AND DELETING THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT IN THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. DSMT1043301. BETWEEN THOMAS CHRISTO PHER MANGA............................................ ....APPLICANT VERSUS THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES............................................. .... 1st RESPONDENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL................................................... 2nd RESPONDENT RULING : 11 th & 12 th June 2026 . KIREKIANO , J : I t is an undisputed fact that the Applicant was the lawful owner of the land under Certificate of Title No. DSM T1043301 Plot No. 17, Block B, located at Kisarawe II , Kigamboni, Dar es Salaam . His relationship with the first respondent is the core of this applica tion. O n 30 th October, 2024 , the Commissioner of Land issued him a letter informing him that his certificate of title was revoked and his name was removed from the land Register .

2 Upon the engagement of the first respondent on 30/06/2025, the first respondent clarified to the applicant by letter that the applicant’s name had been removed from the register. The applicant s ought to be supplied with such a decision so that he could seek redress. This wish has not been granted by the first respondent . The applicant's grievance is that the first respondent's refusal to issue the decision is unlawful, arbitrary, and in breach of the Applicant’s right s to remedies guaranteed under Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania , 1977. The applicant therefore seeks to pursue a public law remedy by asking this court for orders of mandamus to compel the first respondent to perform public d uty conferred upon him and to give a written decision with reasons. Since this move requires the leave of this court , this application is thus brought under Sections 18(1) of the Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act [Cap 310 R.E. 2019] and Rule 5(1) , 5(2) (a, h, c, and d) of the Law Reform (Judicial Review Procedure and Fees) Rules, GN No. 324 of 2014). T he applicant seeks the following reliefs ;

3

1. That this Honorable Court be pleased to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review by way of an order of mandamus compelling the Registrar of Titles to perform the statutory duty of issuing a decision for rectification of the land register that affects the Certificate of Title of the Applicant.
2. Costs be borne by the respondents
3. Any other orders that this court may deem fit and just to grant This application is uncontested by the respondents. During the oral hearing, the applicant was represented by Mr Danf ord Malima, a learned advocate, while the respondents were represented by Mr Tumainiel Paul, a learned state attorney. As Mr Malima rightly submitted , an application for leave has to meet three tests. The same have been stated in plenty of cases includin g Emma Bayo vs. The Minister for Labour and Youths Development & Others Civil 3 Appeal 79 of 2012) [2013] TZCA 190 (23 March

2013. but also reaffirmed in Hamis Babu Bally vs Judicial Officers Ethics Committee and 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 448 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 1010 (31 October 2024) where the CAT in the latter case held at page 7 held thus,

4 I n an application for leave to apply for prerogative orders the court looks for three things; One, whether the applicant has interest or locus stand, two, whether the application has been made timeously and three, whether the applicant has made out a prima facie case” Now, on the first test, Mr Malima urged this court to examine the applicant's affidavit to the effect that the applicant was the registered owner of the land with Certificate of Title No. DSMT1043301 Plot No. 17, Block B, located at Kisarawe II , Kigamboni, Dar es Salaam, which was registered in his personal name. In this , he argues that the applicant was directly affected. O n the second te st on time, he submitted that from 30. 6.2025 , when the applicant received communication from the first respondent till Fri day, 19 th September 2025 , when this application was submitted to the court, was within six months . This is within the requirement under rule 6 of the Law Reforms (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Judicial Review Procedure and Fees) Rules , On the third test, on arguable case, Mr Malima made reference to section 101 of the Land Registration Act [Cap. 334 R.E. 2023] . He sai d the law requires that where the Registrar makes any decision or order

5 or does any act , he shall, 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 rea sons in writing for that act . He argued that the purported clarification by the first respondent was not a decision within the meaning of section 101 of the L and R egist rat ion Ac t Cap. 334 R.E. 2023 . Since t his statutory duty has not been complied with as requested the applicant will seek to compel compliance of section 101 of the A ct. A s indicated above , the counsel for the respondent , Mr Tumaini el Paul informed this court that the respondents were not contesting the application On my part , I shall start with the first test on interest . It is not disputed that the Certificate of Title No. DSMT1043301 Plot No. 17, Block B, located at Kisarawe II, Kigamboni, w as reg istered in the applicant's personal name. A copy of this was annexed in the affidavit, and this fact is not disputed by the respondent. I thus agree that the applicant has an interest and is thus clothed with locus to pursue his cause. In the seco nd aspect, that is, whether the application is timeously filed, the first respondent's letter informing the applicant of the removal of his name was dated 30.6.2025, and this application was submitted to

6 the court on Tuesday, 23 Sep 2025. T he timing gauge is six months, as provided under rule 6 of the Law Reforms (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Judicial Review Procedure and Fees) Rules . On this aspect , I find that the test has been met. On the aspect of an arguable case, the applicant's grievance is the failure to be supplied with a written decision pursuant to section 101 of the Land Registration Act. The applicant deposed in the affidavit, which is not disputed, that he has never been given a written d ecision as required by law. It cannot be over emphasised that the duty to give a decision goes along with the duty to give a reasoned decision. It is incumbent upon all decision - makers, be it courts, tribunals, or public officials, to explain the basis f or their decisions. Decisions with reasons guarantee fairness, promote transparency, and allow affected individuals to understand why a ruling was made and whether it is lawful or otherwise worth appealing . The decision assists the reviewing authority in e xamining whether it followed due process and took into account material considerations . In an application for a public law remedy for example, the availability of a decision gives the court sufficient material upon which it

7 could be ascertained if the applicant has a prima facie c ase and if so if t he decision was within the realm of the l aw. When reflecting on this, I find it relevant to cite a persuasive and useful dictum from the British court by Megaw J In re Poyser a nd Mills' Arbitration [1964] 2 QB 467, 478: "Parliament provided that reasons shall be given, and in my view that must be read as meaning that proper, adequate reasons must be given. The reasons that are set out must be reasons which will not only be intel ligible, but which deal with the substantial points that have been raised ." ( Emphasis supplied ) . Now, u nder the cited section 1 0 1 of the Land Registration Act , the law provides that w here the Registrar makes any decision or order or does any act , he shall, on the application of any person affected thereby, give that decision or order in writing and state his reasons or, as the case may be, give his reasons in writing for that act. It is one thing , therefore, to say that a decision has been reached , and another to give a copy of the decision. The latter is open to scrutiny , which the applicant lacks, and this fact is not disputed by the respondents.

8 With that note , I will thus end here and hold that the applicant has an arguable case; the merit or otherwise will be dealt with in the main application. In the end, I hold that the applicant has met the prerequisite tests warranting the grant of the application. The application is granted. Pursuant to rule 8(1) b, the Law Reform (Judicial Review Procedure and Fees) Rules, GN No. 324 of 2014 , the applicant shall have 14 days to file his application for the writs of mandamus to compel the Registrar of Titles to perform the statutory duty of issuing a decision for rectification of the land register . I make no order as to costs. A . J . KIREKIANO JUDGE 12.6.2026

9 COUR T: R ulin g delivered in the presence of M r Danfor d Mali ma , advocate for the A pplicant, and in the presence of Mr Tumainiel Paul, a learned state attorney for t he Respondents . A . J . KIREKIANO JUDGE 12.6.2026 .