THE LANDS AND DEEDS REGISTRY (AMENDMENT) BILL NO. 13 of 2025: A Step A STEP BACKWARD?
The other day, I listened keenly as various stakeholders appeared before the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture, Lands, and Natural Resources to make submissions on the proposed Lands and Deeds Registry (Amendment) Bill No. 13 of 2025.
Among the submissions, I found the arguments advanced by the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) and Senior Counsel Dickson Jere to be particularly noteworthy and compelling. I have had a thought and a voice to add.
Before delving into a few thoughts of my own, allow me to provide some context. A Bill is a proposed law. It does not become law until the President of the Republic assents to it. This particular Bill seeks to amend the Lands and Deeds Registry Act, a statute first enacted in 1914, and later adopted post-independence as Chapter 185 of the Laws of Zambia.
The 2025 Amendment Bill primarily targets Sections 33 and 34 of the principal Act. These sections deal with the effect of a Certificate of Title and the conditions under which it may be cancelled or challenged.
Section 33 provides that once a Certificate of Title is issued under the Act, it becomes conclusive evidence of ownership as of its date. The registered owner holds the land absolutely, subject only to a few exceptions. A Certificate of Title may be challenged in court if:
• It was obtained through fraud;
• The land interest arises under a prior registered certificate;
• There are errors in boundary descriptions or easements.
These exceptions, however, must be established through court proceedings, not through administrative processes.
The Supreme Court emphasized this in the landmark case of Corpus Legal Practitioners v Mwanandani Holdings Ltd (ZMSC 131/2010), where it held that certificates of title are conclusive evidence of ownership and may only be cancelled through judicial, not administrative, action.
The other section being ammended is sectuon 34. This section reinforces tenure security and limits circumstances under which title may be cancelled. For avoidance of doubt, these include:
• Enforcement of a mortgage;
• Presidential repossession of state lease land due to default;
• Claims by individuals defrauded of their land;
• Misdescriptions or erroneous boundary inclusions.
Now, I must also point to Subsection 2 of Section 33, which further emphasizes that any such disputes shall be handled by the courts. This, thus, leaves no room for administrative cancellation by the Registrar.
What the Amendment Introduces
Contrary to the current law, the proposed Bill introduces a radical change. It provides in its preamble:
“The object of this Bill is to amend the Lands and Deeds Registry Act so as to:
(a) grant the Chief Registrar the power to cancel a Certificate of Title…”
This, in my view, is a fundamental shift from the current legal position. The Bill further introduces a three-tiered appeal mechanism:
1. First appeal to the Minister of Lands;
2. Then to the High Court.
At this juncture, I must hasten to mention that I have two main concerns with this Bill:
1. INDEPENDENCE OF THE APPEALS PROCESS
Under the proposed system, a person aggrieved by a cancellation by the Chief Registrar’s decision must first appeal to the Minister of Lands, a political office that is structurally and administratively connected to the office of the Chief Registrar. Where both the Chief Registrar and the Minister may have had a prior personal, institutional or policy interest in the cancellation, true impartial adjudication becomes questionable. The idea that such appeals must go through administrative filters before reaching the courts may render justice a mere academic exercise.
This process could also prove to be tortuously long in that the Chief Registrar’s office is centralized in Lusaka and may be overburdened. Add to that the time it takes for the Minister to act and for a matter to reach the already congested courts, and the delays become substantial.
I personally have been handling a land matter dating back to 1997. This is testament to how long legal processes can take in our country.
By the time the issue is reaching the Supreme Court, it would be your great grand son inheriting the land. If he even does.
2. EROSION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS
The proposed amendment subtly undermines the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. By interposing multiple layers of executive oversight before a court can intervene, the Bill indirectly ousters the jurisdiction of the judiciary. This is nothing short of a dangerous precedent.
The inclusion of courts at the tail-end of the process does not cure this defect. Again, it appears to me, a subliminal (and perhaps inadvertent) way of usurping the power of the judiciary and vesting it in the executive.
Justice must be accessible, efficient, and impartial. When access to courts is made unduly difficult or inordinately delayed, justice is denied.
In conclusion, this amendment may appear harmless on the surface, but it opens the door to executive overreach and administrative arbitrariness in matters of land title, an area that touches on the livelihoods and rights of millions of Zambians.
When laws strip courts of their central role in resolving disputes and instead vest those powers in political or administrative actors, the rule of law is weakened.
In my considered view, and on the strength of legal principle, judicial precedent, and the views of many seasoned voices, this is bad law.
Daniel Musonda Kaira, ASCZ, Esq
Senior Associate (CSLP)