Perusi Venans Sabi vs Assistant Registrar of Titles Dar Es Salaam Region and Others (Land Appeal No. 19630 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 8677 (19 December 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LAND DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM LAND APPEAL NO. 19630 OF 2025 ( Originating from the decision of Assistant Registrar of Titles Dar es salaam Region, Decision of Change of Ownership by way of Rectification in respect of Pot No. 140 Block 23, CT No. 64723 Bunju, Kinondoni Municipality Dar es salaam Dated 17 th July 2025 ) PERUSI VENANS SABI .................................................. APPELLANT VERSUS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF TITLES DAR ES SALAAM REGION ..................................... 1 st RESPONDENT ASSISTANT LAND COMMISSIONER DAR ES SALAAM REGION ..................................... 2 nd RESPONDENT THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL ............ 3 rd RESPONDENT HENRY PASCHAL MSAE ........................................ 4 th RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT Last order: 31/10/2025 Ruling date: 19/12/2025 MANGO, J The Appellant, Perusi Venans Sabi, preferred the appeal at hand against the decision of the Assistant Registrar of Titles Dar es Salaam acting under the 1

instruction and directives of Assistant Land Commissioner for Dar es Salaam region dated 17 th July 2025. The impugned decision, changed ownership by way of rectification of Plot Number 140 Block 23 Bunju Kinondoni Municipality Dar es salaam with Certificate of title No. 64723 from the Appellant to Henry Paschal Msae. Dissatisfied by that decision, the Appellant approached this Court armed with seven grounds of appeal which are hereby reproduced as follows:

1. That, Hon. Assistant Registrar of Titles Dar es salaam Region under instruction and directives of the Assistant Land Commissioner for Dar es salaam Region erred both in law and in fact for failure to accord the Appellant the right to be heard before the decision of rectification was made and reached
2. That, Hon. Assistant Registrar of Titles Dar es salaam Region under instruction and directives of the Assistant Land Commissioner for Dar es salaam Region erred both in law and in fact for failure to adhere with conditions and procedure (s) enshrined under section 37 and 99 of the Land Registration Act, [Cap 334 R.E 2023]
3. That, Hon. Assistant Registrar of Titles Dar es salaam Region under instruction and directives of the Assistant Land Commissioner for Dar es Salaam Region erred both in law and in fact for failure to take into consideration the fact that, the Appellant inherited Plot No. 140 Block 23 Bunju Kinondoni Municipality free from any encumbrances
4. That, Hon. Assistant Registrar of Titles Dar es salaam Region under instruction and directives of the Assistant Land Commissioner for Dar es Salaam Region erred both in law and in fact for failure to take into 2

consideration that, the Appellant inherited Plot No. 140 Block 23 Kinondoni Municipality from her late husband who was the bonafide purchaser of the said plot 5. That, Hon. Assistant Registrar of Titles Dar es salaam Region under instruction and directives of the Assistant Land Commissioner for Dar es salaam Region erred both in law and in fact for rectifying records of Plot No. 140 Block 23 Bunju Kinondoni Municipality on unproven allegation that there was fraud 6. That, Hon. Assistant Registrar of Titles Dar es salaam Region under instruction and directives of the Assistant Land Commissioner for Dar es salaam Region erred both in law and in fact for failure to consider the fact that the Appellant inherited Plot No 140 Block 23 Bunju Kinondoni Municipality from a person who had good title over the property 7. That, Hon. Assistant Registrar of Titles Dar es salaam Region under instruction and directives of the Assistant Land Commissioner for Dar es salaam Region erred both in law and in fact for transferring ownership of Plot No. 140 Block 23 Bunju Kinondoni Municipality directly from the Appellant to one Henry Paschal Msae without passing through her Excellency the President of United Republic of Tanzania The Appeal proceeded by way of written submissions. The Appellant was represented by Mwita Babere learned advocate though her submission indicates that it was drawn and filed by herself, the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd Respondents were represented by Maria Mtovolwa learned state attorney 3

while the fourth Respondent was represented by Abraham John Mkenda learned advocate. In his submission in support of the appeal, the Appellant adopted the contents of the petition of appeal and its annexures to form part of his submission. He then argued that, the first and second Respondent have not afforded the Appellant with the right to heard before the decision to rectify information regarding ownership of the plot in dispute was made. Citing the case of Efatha Ministry vs J.S. Khambhaita Limited & Other (Civil Appeal No. 823 of 2023) [2025] TZCA 784 (31 July 2025) she argued that, right to be heard is a fundamental right that need to be observed by all decision making authorities. He then proceeded to narrate as to how the Appellant was not afforded the right to be heard. In this, he submitted that, the Appellant after she received rumors about the intended rectification of ownership of the land in dispute, she wrote to the Assistant Registrar of Titles for Dar es salaam seeking confirmation of the rumors and formal notification if at all the rumors are correct. Her letter to that effect dates 28 th February 2024 and it was received by the first Respondent on the same day. Unfortunately the first Respondent didn ’ t respond to the Appellants letter. On 20 th June 2025 the Appellant wrote again to the first Respondent seeking response to her previous letter dated 28 th February 2024. Despite all those efforts the first Respondent didn ’ t afford her with the right to be heard. He argued that, even annexure ASG1 and ASG2 attached to the joint reply to petition of appeal filed by the first, second and third Respondents, establishes that, the Appellant was not given the right to be heard. He was 4

not issued with the notice before the said rectification was effected as required under section 37(1) of the Land Registration Act, [Cap. 334 R.E 2023]. The first, second and third Respondent did not object the fact that the Appellant was not afforded the right to be heard. According to the state attorney, the rectification was made due to fraud, “ obvious fraud ” because entering the Appellant ’ s name in the land register was tainted by fraud and the section under which rectification was made, section 99(1) (d) of the Land Registration Act do not mandate the Registrar to issue notice to anybody before rectifying information entered fraudulently in the land register. She is of the view that, the Appellant is, in one way or another responsible with the fraud alleged to have been committed by Esther Paschal Lukomo who pretended to be the administrator of the estate of the late Henry Paschal Msae and transferred title to Seif Nassor Ally. She arrived to such views because, the Appellant didn ’ t join Nassor Ally and Esther Paschal Lukomo as parties to this appeal. The 4 th Respondent through his advocate, Abraham John Mkenda, made a similar submission on the notice requirements. According to him, section 99(1) under which powers of the registrar to rectify information entered fraudulently in the land register, does not require him to give notice. He added further that, the right to be heard is not intended to shield fraud or illegality. He introduced to the Court a letter from the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau(PCCB) addressed to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlement Development on the fraud alleged to have been facilitated by two officers of the ministry. 5

The names of the said two land officers are not mentioned in this judgement because it is not clear whether their alleged responsibility in facilitating fraudulent rectification of information in the land register regarding ownership of the land in dispute was successfully prosecuted in a Court of law. I will first determine this ground of appeal which forms the core of this appeal. I hold so because, if this ground will be found to be meritorious it will dispose the entire appeal and, if it will be found negatively, the findings will form basis of determination of the remaining grounds of appeal. In actual sense, this Court will only be able to determine the remaining grounds if parties were not afforded the right to be heard the process through which evidence regarding each allegation were to be collected and analysed. From submissions by both parties it is not disputed that the Appellant was not afforded the right to be heard. The reason for that omission are two, first the rectification was done due to existence of fraud and second the section through which the rectification was done, does not require issuance of notice nor hearing of any party who is affected by the rectification. For easy reference the contents of section 99(1) of the Land Registration Act are hereby reproduced as follows; “ 99. 1) Subject to any express provisions of this Act , the land register may be rectified pursuant to an order of the High Court or by the Registrar subject to an appeal to the High Court, in any of the fo l owing cases- (a) where the High Court has decided that any person is entitled to any estate or interest in any registered land and as a consequence of 6

such decision the High Court is of opinion that a rectification of the land register is required, and makes an order to that e f ect; (b) where the High Court, on the application of any person who is aggrieved by any memorial made in, or by the omission of any memorial from the land register, or by any default being made, or unnecessary delay taking place in the inscription of any memorial in the land register, makes an order for the rectification of the land register; (c) in any case and at any time with the consent of a l persons interested; (d) where the High Court or the Registrar is satisfied that any memorial in the land register, has been obtained by fraud; (e) where any memorial has become who l y obsolete; and (f) in any other case, where by reason of any error or omission in the land register or by reason of any memorial made under a mistake, or for other sufficient cause it may be deemed just to rectify the land register. ” Literal interpretation of section 99(1)(d) under which the first Respondent acted, empowers the first Respondent to rectify information in the land register facilitated by fraud. Fortunately neither party has disputed the fact that the law vests in the Registrar and the High Court powers to rectify information in the land register entered fraudulently. The only issue is whether in exercising such powers the registrar is required to hear persons who will be affected by such rectification or he can merely rectify the registrar immediately after receiving information regarding fraud without hearing. The response to the issue is found in the first sentence of section 99(1) of the Land Registration Act which subjects the powers provided under the section to any express provisions of the Act. Among the express provisions of the Act are sections 37 and 99(2). 7

Section 37(1) of the Land Registration Act, provides for general procedure to be followed in the course of effecting endorsements in the certificate of title or it ’ s cancellation. The section reads; 37. -(1) The Registrar may, at any time, give notice in writing to any person whom he believes to be in possession of a certificate of title requiring such person to produce the same for endorsement of or cancellation within the period named in such notice, not being less than fourteen days from the date thereof, and any such notice shal l state the reason why the production of such certificate of title is required. In the appeal at hand, it is not disputed that, the Appellant had in her hands a certificate of title which was issued after the alleged loss of the first title issued to the fourth Respondent. In that regard, issuance of notice in writing to the Appellant stating why the certificate of title in her hands should be cancelled was very necessary. Although the wording of the cited section is not coached in mandatory terms, failure to issue such notice is a fatal omission. I hold so because right to be informed of the reasons for a decision is fundamental right and the notice would have given a chance to the Appellant to appear before the Registrar for more information regarding the alleged fraud. Another express provision is section 99(2) which provides for circumstances under which the land register can be rectified due to fraud. The section read:- “ 99. (2) The land register sha l not be rectified so as to a f ect the title of an owner of an estate who is in possession- (a) unless such owner is a party or privy or has caused or substantia l y contributed to the fraud, mistake or omission in consequence of which such rectification is sought; 8

(b) unless the immediate disposition to him was void, or the disposition to any person through whom he claims otherwise than for value was void; or (c) unless for any other reason, in any particular case, it is considered that it would be unjust not to rectify the register against him. ” This section, need proper hearing of the parties to ascertain the alleged fraud and extent of contribution of each party in the said fraud, if any. In the case at hand it was necessary for the Registrar to gather more information on the involvement of the fourth Respondent, if any, in the fraudulent acts done by Esther Paschal Lukomo who pretended to be his personal representative and involvement of the late Venance Sabi Mulebya in the alleged fraud. It is only after gathering such information that the registrar would have been able to make an informed decision regarding a more just remedy for the Appellant and the fourth Respondent who are both alleging to be victims of the said fraud. I hold so because facts in record does not establish contributions if any, of the Appellant or her late husband and the fourth Respondent towards the alleged fraud. Record suggests that, the Registrar acted on the letter written to the Ministry by PCCB. Unfortunately, the report did not give more details on the result of Court proceedings instituted against the perpetrators of the fraud and involvement of any other person in the said fraud except, the two land officers mentioned in the said letter. In addition, record does not establish whether the alleged probate case through which the said Esther Paschal Lukomo was issued with letters of administration of the estate of the fourth Respondent were nullified so as to rectify records on the death of the fourth Respondent or not. With such information gaps, it was necessary for the Appellant and the fourth Respondent to be heard. 9

As correctly submitted by both parties, right to be heard is a fundamental right and any decision reached without hearing parties is nullity. See Charles Christopher Humprey Kombe vs Kinondoni Municipal Council (Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2017) [2020] TZCA 1932 (12 June 2020). The remedy of such an omission is to have a particular decision quashed. In that regard, I find the appeal to be meritorious and it is hereby allowed. The decision of the registrar is hereby quashed and set aside. Given circumstances in this appeal, I do not award costs. Dated at Dar es Salaam this 19 th day of December 2025 Z.D.MANGO JUDGE 10