Dear Editor,
Upon your publication of my letter of 5th August, 2010 on the tiresome issue of the Land Registry I had resolved to give rest to my mind and pen regarding the many irritants and illegalities inherent in both the appointment and performance of the current Registrar. But, regrettably, the public complaints continue to flow and I dare not remain silent.
There are a few basic and simple features of the land registration system that distinguish it from the more familiar Roman-Dutch or Transports’ system. The Transport is the actual title to the land and the “grosse” issued to the public is a certified copy of the original which is retained in a bound volume at the Deeds Registry. With land registration, however, the actual title is the memorial or entry in the land register. The Certificate of Title is indeed merely evidence of that entry in the register which is the real title. The Register is the thing! The owner is officially referred to as the “Registered Proprietor” based only upon that entry in the Register.
Accordingly when a transfer of title is made by a vendor “A” to purchaser “B”, purchaser “B” is anxious that the Registrar enter his/her name as proprietor in the Register with greatest dispatch since that “entry” is his/her title. The Certificate of title may issue later, if requested.
So important is this process of entry into the Register that the Land Registry Rules stipulate that where the Registrar refuses to register any instrument presented for registration he shall cause a notice of such refusal to be served on the parties. This is seldom, if ever, done. What happens in fact is that the party suffering, normally a purchaser, or lawyer’s clerk, must trudge to the Land Registry, there to be given some attempted oral explanation of the problem that is never reduced into writing. There is provision for a dissatisfied party to seek such written explanation in which may then form the basis of an appeal to a Judge of the Supreme Court. In view of the characteristic intransigence of the Registrar in office, this relief is somewhat illusory, since the complainant is forced to seek the services of a legal practitioner for such a course, involving an inconvenient lapse of time and additional legal expenses. It is against such background that business at the Land Registry has assumed the character of “Mission Impossible” as the public continue to suffer while some lawyers “cry all the way to the bank”.
Another phenomenon of which I made written complaints to the Office of the President ever since August, 2007 is the purported appointment by the good lady Registrar of employees entitled “Assistant Sworn Clerk” a term copied from the High Court Act and the Deeds Registry Act but for which there is no legal provision whatever in the Land Registry Act. These so called “Assistant Sworn Clerks” affect to certify documents for issue to the public that ought to be signed or certified by the Registrar, a Deputy Registrar or an Assistant Registrar, officers required to take their oath of office before no less an official than The Chief Justice. Not only does the present Registrar make these spurious appointments but proceeds to administer some oath herself. Such illegal/unconstitutional effrontery is without precedent. Consequently, the documents so certified ought never to be accepted in evidence by the Court nor by the public. It is yet another example of crass illegality.
Lastly, I drew attention about three years ago to the current Commissioner of Title operating in Georgetown that in relation to applications for declarations of title under section 107 of the Land Registry Act sub section (8) provides for the application of sections 39, 40 and 42 to the process. However, sections 39, 40, 41 and 42 have never been brought into force by Parliament. Surely it is time that this be remedied.
I have given up on the legal profession as a source of any meaningful representation on the irritants and deficiencies attending the Land Registration system and the Land Registry in particular. They seem to be blind to the fact that the silence of our profession on these seemingly trivial abominations is a primary contributory to the disrespect harboured by some governments for such hallowed institutions as the rule of law.
Those who continue to masquerade at this time as our Opposition political parties share that blindness. They opt at this crucial stage to indulge in seemingly playful party games in the quest of a candidate whom they would elect to preside over the palpable mess into which our two main land title systems are clearly headed. And they all have a host of lawyers on board. And they all hear the despairing public cry “Is how dis place get so”?
Yours faithfully,
Leon O Rockcliffe
