Mapigano, J.: Stephen Kiame Sefu, the appellant herein, was the holder of a Right of Occupancy over a parcel of land comprised in Title No. 16507 and described as Plot 13 Block J. Ilala, Dar es Salaam. In May, 1987, the appellant made a disposition of the C property in favour of one Hamoud Abdallah Sumry for a consideration of shs one million, and the disposition was duly effected by deed. The appellant afterwards sought for the consent of the appropriate authority to the disposition and on 4/6/87 that consent was duly granted. Then the appellant submitted the transfer to the Registrar of Titles for Dregistration. That was on 17/6/87. By his letter addressed to the advocate of the appellant dated 3/9/87, the Senior Assistant Registrar of Titles, the respondent herein, declined to register the transfer. The reason given by the respondent in that letter was that the appellant had not "sorted out the transfer problems with the Prime Minister's E Office". The respondent did not specify those problems, but counsel for the appellant has informed the Court that certain members of the appellant's Office in relation with the transfer and that office had consequently advised the Registrar of Titles to postpone the registration of the transfer. F
The appellant was aggrieved by the refusal of the respondent and has thus come to this Court to challenge it. The appeal is brought under section 102(1) of the Land Registration Ordinance, Cap. 334. By that provision any person who is aggrieved by a G decision, order or act of the Registrar of Titles may appeal to the High Court within three months from the date of such decision, order or act. And by subsection (9) thereof the High Court may make such order on the appeal as the circumstances may require.
There is only one substantive ground of appeal and it is that the respondent erred in law H in refusing registration on account of matters that were irrelevant or extraneous. The respondent has inexplicably not appeared at the hearing of this appeal and it is reasonable to conclude that he is indifferent to these proceedings.
I am bound to accept the appellant's contention. The law of the case is, doubtless, the I Land Registration Ordinance, and upon reading that Ordinance I have to say, with respect, that I find no
function that has been given to the Prime Minster's Office in the whole scheme of A registration under that legislation. The power of the Registrar of Titles and his Assistants to refuse registration of transfers, absolutely or conditionally, is provided under section 42 of that Ordinance, which reads as follows: B
If it appears to the Registrar that any deed presented for registration is improper in form or in substance, or is not clearly expressed, or does not indicate with sufficient precision the particular estate which it is intended to effect, or contains material provisions which are not the C proper subject of registration under this Ordinance or covenants or conditions which do not in law run with the land or are not capable of being annexed thereto, or is otherwise expressed in a manner inconsistent with the principles on which the land register is to be kept, he may refuse registration, either absolutely or subject only to such modification therein as he shall D approve.
It is my considered opinion, therefore, that once the appropriate authority has granted his approval to a transfer, the Registrar of Titles has no discretion to withhold registration E unless any of the circumstances mentioned in the above section actually obtains. So the respondent was in error at law.
In the event, I allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the respondent. I hereby direct the respondent to re-admit the appellant's application for registration and dispose F of it in the manner provided by the relevant provisions of the Land Registration Ordinance. I make no order as to costs.
G Appeal allowed.
H