Description
Grounds of appeal – matters that did not come up before the trial court – successor judge – a matter conclusively determined by predecessor – functus officio – hearsay evidence – unconfirmed information – registration under a land titles system – search to establish chain of titles to the property – conclusive proof of title – extract from the land register – evidence confirming the underlying transactions – unimpeachable proof of the titles – loss on account of errors made in the land register – indemnity from the Government.
- In an appeal filed before the Court of Appeal, some grounds concerned matters that did not come up before the trial court – it was held that the Court of Appeal will only look at the matters that came up in the lower court(s) and were decided (p. 7).
- A successor judge made a pronouncement on a matter that had been conclusively determined by his predecessor – it was held that that was an error and that the court was functus officio on that matter (p. 14).
- In trial, the appellant had referred to information given to him by a land officer, but did not call the land officer as a witness – on appeal it was held that the evidence is plainly worthless. It is not just hearsay but also unconfirmed information that cannot be acted upon by a court of law. It would have been prudent if the appellant had produced the so-called land officer as a witness to testify on that claim (p. 15).
- The Court subscribed to the observation that the registration under a land titles system is more than the mere entry in a public register/it is authentication of the ownership of, or a legal interest in, a parcel of land. The act of registration confirms transactions that confer, affect or terminate that ownership or interest. Once the registration process is completed, no search behind the register is needed to establish a chain of titles to the property, for the register itself is conclusive proof of the title (pp. 16 – 17).
- An extract from the land register (Exhibit D 2) is not just proof of the state of ownership over the property in dispute by the persons named therein, but also evidence confirming the underlying transactions that conferred or terminated the respective titles to the persons named therein. On that basis, the Court rejected the contention that registration of title was secured without the consent of the Commissioner for Lands or that it was secured on the strength of a bogus certificate (p. 17).
- A land register is an unimpeachable proof of the titles recorded therein (p. 18).
- Any person that suffers loss on account of errors made in the land register can seek indemnity from the Government by applying to the Registrar of Titles who is enjoined to determine whether an entitlement to indemnity is made out, and if yes, award appropriate indemnity, subject to the right of appeal to the High Court (p. 20).
