Naiputa Saiguran vs Nganashe Loomu (Taxation Cause No. 5 of 1999) [2000] TZHC 596 (27 September 2000)

f.' NYERE. T / 0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TJ.lJ3ANIA AT ARUSHA TAXATION QAUSE NO. 5 OF 1999 (PC.Arusha Urbari Pr.Court Civil Case No.29/92 Arusha D/Cot Civil Appeal !Jc; 57/92) NAIPUTA SAIGURAN .•. • • ., .... « .• , , • ~ ._, ".)PELLANT · . {I Vrs ' ' ' NGANASHE LOQ.11U "o ,. " 1 ., ,. rt o,;• e ~ ••• ., ., RESPOND]NT RULING This is Arusha. High Court Taxation Cause No. 5/1999 origir'.ating · fr.:xn High_Ceurt ef Arusha Civil Appeal no,. 2$/92 o::.iginally Arusha . -pist];'.ict Court Civil Appeal no. 57 /92 where by ·N,11.PUT!t S.UGUrtAN :1erein- after referred. 'to aa the Appellant/Applicant· filed a Bill of. Costs crmprises of 5 items with a total claim of shs 04 1 000/= against -. . . NGAi."IJASI-IE LO(l,fil hereinafter referred to as the ReSborrlent., • ' 6 • !he Appliqant i pray:Lng for Costs she incurred. for her Bus fare, Meal aD.,-,wances and the m("\ney \·Jhich she ·paid for her 111itnesses and her interpreter ·each t:ime she cane for mention or 1:6arj_11g. ~ , Tl'!e respon:ient strongly o't>jected this application Slbnitting that the:- interpreter- was not coming fr.an Lengijave their 'Hane Vi1.J.age, father he stays at Sill.eani· area and d-.1'es not need to board a Bur C:)ming t . . to. coltl'.'t because he was coming· on ±:cot.,. c.:.....,t,;:,oi"' more she sulmitted ''that they were taking breakfast and lunch c.;.;ether and. they raid shs- 120/ for a cup of black tea and one'.:-1 half..:..cake anr\ ,':\ plate 0f rice shs. 300/= and finaly Bus fare they were paying,: shs 11+0/= to arid fr"'ffl ½E:ngijave to Town. She expressed her, surpris tr- the omount the f ' applicant is cJ.1~.:hning shs 50t.OOO/= fer ·the documents i'111ich were prepared and she subnittecl that the same .were·- preparec by a. lay ·.:.er;:;on by the name of Laizer Ki.sambu.

., Se he prepared' the reply to the' Peti tio!1 <:.f Appeal 1 as ch the respondent object strongly fer her to be condem:i.necl to pay su::-h costs ... . : . . The Applicant in further rep:-i~~ r1 1 '-mitted tbat ::;he was taldng milk tea with cpati so she spent shs. 500/= for brea1-.::fas·(. an1 coveded t3 Dus fare of shs 150/= as stated by Respondent f:can Ngaraintoni to Arusha town. . - A considSI?ed view of this court is whether the amount cla:lii1ed "is genuine. Starting with item no. l(a) the same is t.,a,"{ed at shs .. : 300/= fare Bus fr•rn Lengijave to Ngaramtoni to /-u-usha & Vice Versa and shs4 i:t.00/= is taxed off. foe being unreasonable. Item no., 1(b) is struck off there was no need of pay:i.ng the :inter- p!'eter, the Court nevet ordered the applica.:-it t,o l!d.1.1g he1' interpreter , P ·the· same 1"easo11.ing is adobted in item no. 2(a)t ·.3(a), 4() and 5(a) the same arestruck out. Item no. l(c) is ,taxed· at ·shs.~ 150/= and shs 850/= taxed o:f;f - item no~ 1(d) i_s _ta;ced at, shs,, • 500/-:: and· shs 700/= is taed off~ I award eal allowance, to onJ.y the applicant;, the o:,het· per son since it · . '.· ~ ·:. is · not stated he came for tvhat purpose cannot· be al}_o,:.aa f'!l' awarded Item no. 2(b) 1 3(b), 4(b) 1 5(b) a.i--:-e; t.ajcecl at shs, 300/= eac!". item and,. shs 11.00/::: is truced off -from each i:L:<r.;.: _Item no,.. 2 c, 4 c, 5 b, are taxed at s:1s 500/= eacL. aLd fhs 500/= is :ooxed off from each item. Items no • .2 d> 3 c·, 4 c, 5 c 1 are.: trucecl. at csl1s 600/--: eacr: item and shs •. 1800/:: is truced @ff from each item~ Items no. 5(d) is struck off 8 Item no. 5 e is-;ta;::cd at 2000/= and shs 8000/= is taxed off.

: : .'3 .. . . S• in the final analysis the whole Bill of Cests is weed at shs. 6,450/= and shs 90 1 950/= troced off. It is so ordered-. Right cf Re fer nee fully explained. ,,. Ru.line delivered in Chamber this 27th day of September} 2000 in the presence of Applicant in person and in the presence of Respondent in person. ACN/el. .,,1nt~.--· (.~ o C ~ Nyerere) TAXING OFFICER 2C'/9 /';Jjoo, 0 -,·""; ;i