Information provided by the Director of Land Registry

“The Director of Land Registry provides information to the interested person for any entry or transfer in the land registry upon payment of a fee”

There are various reasons that an interested person may request information from the Director of the Land Registry regarding an immovable property registered in a registry or a book, upon payment of the prescribed fee. All registrations and transfers of immovable property are recorded in the registry kept by each District Land Office. Any interested person, such as an owner, his heirs or legatees, a beneficiary of a right or interest in immovable property, a potential purchaser or mortgagee, a plaintiff in an action against the owner of such property, a valuer who requests information for the purpose of valuation related to compulsory acquisition as well as a lawyer who was assigned by any of the aforementioned persons, is entitled to request information regarding any entry in the registration or transfer of an immovable property. Credit Institutions are also entitled to receive such information from the Land Registry, after filing an application stating the reasons for their request. Relevant to the above are the provisions of article 51A of the Law on Immovable Property, Cap.224.

When a credit institution requests such information, the Director of Land Registry provides it without verifying the reasons stated in the application. The credit institution must inform in writing the person for whom it has requested information concerning his/her immovable property and state the reasons for the application. The Director may subsequently conduct a sample audit in order to ascertain the reasons submitted, by sending a letter requesting the credit institution to justify the reasons behind the request. In this respect, the credit institution is obliged to respond promptly (within a month from the request of the Director) and give the Director, all necessary evidence justifying the purpose of the requested information along with a copy of the information letter sent to the owner. The owner may submit a written request to the Director to carry out an ex-post check on whether the credit institution had indeed reasonable grounds to obtain the information in question.

The Supreme Court in the context of its decision issued in Application No.49/2023, dated 24/05/2023, for the issuance of a madamus order, interpreted the meaning of the term "interested person" as provided in the relevant Law. According to the facts of the case, the plaintiff in a lawsuit sought against the defendants a declaratory order recognising that he has the right to use and possess an immovable property which it was registered in the defendants’ name. The action was dismissed by the Court at first instance. The Court of Appeal overturned the judgement of the first instant Court by issuing a relevant declaratory order. Subsequently, the plaintiff, through his lawyer, requested from the Director of Land Registry a certified copy of the declaration of the transfer of the immovable property, which was allegedly submitted prior to the issuance of the judgment of the Supreme Court. Such information came to the knowledge of the plaintiff much later.

The reason for the requested information was for the plaintiff to use it in order to file legal proceedings against the persons who submitted the relevant declaration of transfer to the Land Registry. The Director of the Land Registry refused to provide a certified copy of the declaration of transfer with all enclosed documents, relying on Article 51A of Cap.224. The plaintiff applied to the Supreme Court for a leave to proceed with a writ of madamus ordering the Director of the Land Registry to provide him with a copy of the aforesaid declaration. The Supreme Court referred to the facts of the case and to Article 51A of the Law, interpreting that the term "interested person" who is entitled to be provided with such information, also includes a lawyer who is duly authorised by the aforementioned persons to request information for the registration or transfer in a registry or other book kept by each District Land Office.

The Supreme Court remarked that the application to the Land Registry was submitted by the plaintiff's lawyer as the authorized representative of the plaintiff, in accordance with the relevant provision of the Law. Therefore, the lawyer is the interested person who rightfully, upon payment of the prescribed fee, could submit an application and request any information allowed by the relevant Law. Consequently, following the Director’s refusal, the person entitled to seek an order of madamus, was the lawyer and not the plaintiff. In short, the Court concluded that, under the circumstances, it was the plaintiff’s lawyer, and not the plaintiff, who had the right to file the application for mandamus before the Supreme Court and for this reason the application was dismissed.