Gatare v Parkash Kaur and Others (Civil Suit 106 of 1995)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The Registrar of Titles has power under s.178(a) of the Registration of Titles Act to correct errors in the register and cancel a certificate of title where the registered proprietor has voluntarily surrendered the title in response to a requisition under s.69. A court order is required only where the holder refuses or neglects to surrender the certificate. The Registrar acted lawfully in cancelling the plaintiff's registration after the plaintiff voluntarily surrendered his title following notice of irregularities.
Outcome
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter remanded for hearing on the merits
Facts
The plaintiff purchased Plot No. 5 Banigo Road, Kabale District from L.S. Kogo who purported to act under a power of attorney from the first defendant dated 1 December 1987. The sale took place on 6 October 1989 and the property was registered in the plaintiff's name on 6 March 1990. The Registrar of Titles subsequently wrote to the plaintiff on 19 January 1994 enumerating irregularities in the transaction and gave 21 days' notice to show cause why the register should not be amended and the first defendant's name reinstated. The plaintiff's lawyers responded stating he was a victim of circumstances and requesting time to rectify errors. On 24 April 1994 the Registrar declined to re-register the transfer, finding that Kogo had signed as attorney for the first defendant without a lawful power of attorney as required by s.154 of the Registration of Titles Act. The Registrar impounded the certificate of title and cancelled the plaintiff's registration. The plaintiff brought suit seeking declarations that he is the lawful owner and seeking reinstatement. Before the hearing commenced, plaintiff's counsel raised a preliminary objection that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to cancel the certificate without a court order.
Issues
- Whether the Registrar of Titles has jurisdiction to cancel a certificate of title under Registration of Titles Act s.178(a) without obtaining a court order.
- Whether the Registrar acted within his powers in cancelling the plaintiff's registration and reinstating the first defendant.
Orders
- Preliminary objection overruled.
- Hearing of the suit to proceed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
Cases cited (3)
- Fred Sentale v Chief Registrar of Titles (Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 1995)
- Sudaplast Industries Ltd v Chief Registrar of Titles (Miscellaneous Application No. 93 of 1995)
- British India General Insurance Co. Ltd v. The Commissioner for Land Registrar. Misc. App. No. 655/9
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.