Dear Editor,

We had all been, and still are, wedded to a land-title system familiarly known as the ‘Transports’ or Roman-Dutch system involving advertisement of transactions in the Official Gazette.  Although some of its administrative woes featured in my letter of one week ago, this system of transports, mortgages and leases will remain with us for the foreseeable future and so merits continuing attention and support.

In order to address some of the shortcomings of that system and to achieve a measure of simplicity in land tenure, there was introduced in 1959 by the Land Registry Ordinance (now Act) the Torrens system of Land Registration which would first address those well-populated areas mainly on the sea coast and designated ‘registration areas’ under the act, situated mainly between Charity and Corriverton and in those riverain communities where the land had been held by transport.  There would be appointed Commissioners of Title who would hear applications by the public for title to the land they occupied on the basis of some old transport, inheritance by intestacy or will, undisturbed occupation or purchase.  The Commissioners’ awards or declarations of title would initiate entries into the land registers on which basis Certificates of Title would be issued to the successful applicants.

The appealing features of this new system were in the main:-

● simplicity of description of the individual landholding, eg Parcel number, in Block number in Zone (geographical area); all such titles now being based on accurate land surveys

● simple statutory forms for transfers, mortgages, charges and leases

● no advertisement in the Gazette; registration of transactions should take just one or two days

● provisions for registration of judgments; liens and loans obtained by delivery of the Certificate of Title to a lender; caveats restraining further transactions on the land without informing the caveator

● an assurance fund for compensation to persons suffering loss of title through error.

The Land Registration system was initiated in 1960 but over the years failed to make the expected countrywide impact due mainly to the lack of human resources, eg, sufficient number of Commissioners of Title, land surveyors and supportive clerical and administrative personnel and in retrospect, a palpable lack of zeal on the part of the governmental administration at all levels to pursue its application, growth and development.

The principal Land Registry at Georgetown shared the premises with the Deeds Registry until some time in the year 2003 when it was decided that it be removed to the premises of the Guyana Lands & Surveys Commission (GLSC) at Upper Hadfield Street, in the D’Urban Backlands.  This was regrettably done without any prior consultation with the Bar Association and in particular with the financial institutions affording mortgage loans to the mainly housing community.  As later manifested, it was the government’s intention to bring the Land Registry under the administrative control of the GLSC.  And there begins our present sadness.

In late January, 2004, an attempt was made to have the Chief Justice administer the oath of office to a new Registrar of Lands, Ms Juliet Sattaur; a Deputy Registrar, Mr Dennis Pooran; and Miss Paula Ferdinand as Assistant Registrar.  Upon learning of this plan, I drew to the attention of the  Chief Justice that such appointments would be in conflict with the terms of section 7 of the Land Registry Act which stated (as it still states) as follows:- “There shall be a Registrar of Lands and a Deputy Registrar of Lands who shall be the persons for the time being holding the offices of Registrar of Deeds and Deputy Registrar of Deeds respectively.”  Accordingly, these appointments of other persons would be illegal in the absence of some appropriate amendment to the act.  That initial swearing ceremony was aborted.  I was seeking to protect the Chief Justice from the possible ignominy of lending legitimacy to a patent illegality.  However, it appears that more reliable legal advice was tendered and accordingly the oaths were administered without further ado and without such amendment of the act, and because this is a world of many wonders, only to Ms Sattaur and Mr Pooran, but not to Miss Ferdinand, on Monday, April 26, 2004.  Now, senior members of the private legal fraternity agreed that these appointments were indeed an illegality and those lawyers in particular who represented financial institutions which lend money on Land Registry mortgages had expressed doubt regarding the legality of transactions processed and signed by these illegally appointed officers.  Some noises were made, but like most noises in this troubled world, they soon subsided and as far as I am concerned, the illegality continues.  Mr Pooran later disappeared from the scene and into the sunset.  I am convinced that Parliament will one fine day pass the required amendment taking care to validate those apprehended illegalities that would have been committed.

The noises resumed, however, on a different note and continue to this day as the Registrar, not affectionately described by lawyers and clerks alike as “That lady at the Land Registry” exercises her own inscrutable will, establishes procedures and makes rules of her own. These are responsible for delays in the processing of transactions.  Her free hand must be explained below.

At the date of her purported appointment as Registrar in April, 2004 ministerial responsibility for the Land Registry resided in the Minister of Legal Affairs.  However, in the revision by the President of such ministerial responsibility in November, 2006 there was a patent change or omission whereby charge of the Land Registry did not feature in the responsibilities of any minister.  The constitutional result was that those responsibilities remained, as they still do, with the President of the Republic. I can only opine, that this anomaly was never drawn to the attention of the President, a man absorbed with the understandably broad spectrum of national and international responsibilities.  The result was and still remains, that the Land Registry is the only government department not headed by an appointed minister who would be charged with ensuring its effectiveness, overseeing its operations, sponsoring its development towards serving the purpose of its establishment and answering to Cabinet.  Well, in effect, there is no such appointed minister and it could hardly be expected that the Head of State actually perform those duties.

And so, it boggles the imagination that the government could entertain as an employee a virtual loose cannon, free of administrative control, proper legal advice and sanction, exercising her own narrow perspectives in relation to the operation and integrity of a land-titles system embracing the entire country.  I ought to mention here that the original intention of bringing the Land Registry under the ambit of the GLSC foundered very early on the rocks of acrimonious contention between this Registrar and the then GLSC Commissioner Mr Andrew Bishop.

This, therefore, is the present structural scenario of the Land Registry:-

● one Registrar;

● no Deputy Registrar, no assistant Registrar; the act provides for these;

● at the principal Land Registry, Georgetown, only three clerks attending to the public, who, though very diligent, lack that depth of training in the reading and interpretation of the act;

● a public area only five feet wide by twelve feet in length with a substantial iron grill and a harmless aged security guard protecting those officers from us the public and with no space on the counter to rest a document, examine a land register or plan or even sign a cheque or document  (This must be experienced to be believed – a visit is imperative);

● at New Amsterdam, Berbice one junior clerk – inadequate in every regard;

● at the Essequibo end there is no Registry but it is understood that on Thursdays one of the clerks from Georgetown visits some site in Parika (a geographically sensible location) to minister to the public there;

● notably under the existing situation the Registrar is the only officer legally qualified to sign Certificates of Title or any other certificate relating to the business of the Registry, since there is no deputy registrar or assistant registrar in existence.  What happens when the Registrar is away from the principal Registry for any reason, is a matter of conjecture.

Now, surely this scandalous state of affairs could only persist with the blessing of the governmental administration.  What I find entirely amazing is that the government which has demonstrated such zeal and imagination and committed so great a degree of human resources and finance toward an expanded housing programme can be so careless about ensuring the intergrity of both the Transports and Land Registry    systems that would guarantee the production and reliability of the land titles upon which any such programme must be founded.  Arising from very healthy correspondence with Dr Luncheon in the year 2001, I was convinced and satisfied that he favoured the Land Registration system as the simpler, less expensive and most appropriate vehicle for delivering title to the thousands of allottees in new government housing schemes.  How they missed the bus in relation to the massive Great Diamond/Golden Grove Scheme, East Bank Demerara and that at Tuschen de Vrienden, East Bank Essequibo is not therefore understood, since these two schemes remain subject to both the documentary and administrative inconveniences of the old Transports system.

I cannot end without expressing my grave disappointment over the treatment of my letter to the good Doctor of August, 2007 drawing urgent attention to the crisis situation already very evident at the Land Registry under its current management.  He merely acknowledged receipt of it two months later without ensuing comment.  Most discouraging indeed to the sincere efforts of a citizen in support of a crucially important department of the government and in relation to so vital an aspect of public business.

My present appeal, which I hope will at last receive the expressed support of the legal community, is that the government answer this urgent call to action and rescue the Land Registry system and its operations from the idiosyncratic behaviour to which it has been subject.

Yours faithfully,
Leon O Rockcliffe

Editor’s note

We are sending a copy of this letter to the Registrar of Lands, Ms Juliet Sattaur, for any comment she might wish to make.