Give Back Land To Owner – Court

Não é difícil assumir que jogar por dinheiro é realmente lucrativo. Para apostar de verdade, você precisa criar uma página pessoal. O registro no site oficial Pin Up pinup-entrar.com envolve o preenchimento de um pequeno formulário e não leva muito tempo. Você só tem que realizar 2 ações.
By Dickson Jere
A man owned a farm in Lusaka’s Lilayi area. It was offered to him by the Kafue District Council and later confirmed by the Ministry of Lands. He took possession and built a house where he lived until he died in 2011. His family went to bury him in Mazabuka but on return, they found the farm had been taken over by someone who claimed ownership. He flashed a Certificate of Title as the owner of the same farm issued in 2014.
When his family went to enquire about the new Certificate of Title which this new person had, it was discovered that it was given by the Commissioner of Lands after he repossessed (reentered) the farm because it was not developed.
Strangely, all the records pertaining to this plot at the Ministry of Lands were deleted from the system before they issued title to another person.
Meanwhile, the officials from Kafue District Council claimed that they recommended for the land to be taken away because the deceased did not pay for the “offer letter” at Lands on time. They added that he was given 30 days in which to pay about ZMW 95,000 but failed hence losing his property.
The Representative of the deceased sued the purported new owner, Ministry of Lands and Kafue Council, arguing that the title was given fraudulently and that the land was in fact developed. They presented old printouts from the Ministry of Lands to show that the deceased was bonafide owner.
The High Court Judge, having heard both sides, ruled in favour of the ‘new owner’ and the Ministry of Lands on the ground that the deceased did not show receipts that he paid for the land when it was offered to him. And that the repossession of the said land by the Commissioner of Lands was justified as he did not pay for it on time.
Unsatisfied, the family appealed to the Court of Appeal.
A panel of three Judges relooked at the case and evidence and found that the land in fact rightly belonged to the deceased. The Judges combed the evidence and discovered that the new owner lied that he was the one staying at the same farm when in fact not but the Ministry proceeded to give him title.
“The very beginning of the Respondent (new owner) journey in acquiring this property started with a lie when he applied for this particular piece of land and misrepresented that he was a sitting tenant on the land which he falsely claimed was unoccupied,” the Judges noted.
“There is evidence on record that the 1st Respondent paid for and obtained survey diagrams before the property was actually offered to him. This was quite inappropriate…” the Judges said, adding that this new owner had a hand in fraudulently grabbing this farm from the deceased.
The Court observed that the ‘new owner’ actually started eyeing this land even before the actual owner died and also before the Commissioner of Lands reentered the property for lack of development when in fact there was a house.
“The entire manner in which the 1st Respondent acquired the deceased’s land points only to fraud or impropriety and we so find,” the Judges said.
“This appeal succeeds and we order that the certificate of title issued to the 1st Respondent be cancelled and that he yields vacant possession of the subject premises to the Appellant,” the Court ruled and ordered legal costs to be paid by the purported new owners and the Ministry of Lands.
The purported new owner claimed he had even subdivided the farms into 35 plots and already sold them to different people but the Court refused to accept that line of argument.
The Judges insisted that if the land was not taken away from the deceased by fraud, evidence still points to impropriety in the manner the Ministry of Lands took away the farm and gave to another person.
“There was no mention of the offer never having been accepted to pay the consideration fees,” the Judges said, adding that there was contradictory statements as the Ministry of Lands said the farm was undeveloped.
Case citation- Mataa v Sipanje and Others-Appeal No. 129/2021 and Judgment delivered in 2023.
Lecture Notes;
1. As you can glean from this case, the rot is at the Ministry of Lands. How can they issue title to someone on the ground that the land is undeveloped when there is a house and someone staying there? Who even deleted the records at the Ministry of Lands? How did the Commissioner of Lands issue title without his officers checking what is on the ground?
2. This is why I oppose the new Lands and Deeds Registry Act that intends to give powers to one individual – Chief Registrar – to cancel titles. Cases of this nature will be rampant! That Ministry needs cleaning up as opposed to giving them powers to cancel titles.
3. This case underscores the logic of only allowing Courts to cancel titles after a full hearing. Imagine if this power is to remain with an individual at the Ministry of Lands. Here the Commissioner of Lands went ahead and repossessed someone’s land after he died and gave to another one who never even lived on that land!

source