Adriano Mgeni vs Afitwa Abia Ayo (Taxation Cause No. 15 of 1999) [2000] TZHC 203 (4 July 2000)

· ·L)I'AXATION CAU3E l>J;Q; ·1, .o'JT.1999; : .. . ,.,,.<...,. .... · ('c/f Civ:Ll Appefil No'. 69/97} t . . . AnμNO JiGfil.I JC c: f;,.,,;.1:;;i:.;. .:i .. : , .. '..4WPL;[:.::/;-7/;-_' ; C ' .. . ·' .: .-'.:,<:,' Ve+ 0 a:,_i, ·> _·: . ~ 1 : : '1.·· :- ' : :~~I;. :•1: • •: .... ;, - .:_ •"; : . : ' ,•·. -~~~;½. . : • "t -~ .. ·. I•·- . II NY.EREPt.E 7 T/M . . . . . 'i'°i_;, ___ :' ,,J,i ,t This is ./.\rushA. High Coi.u:•i:. Ta:v:,t.ion Cs.1t!=I"'! No 1 5/17!9 i.g::41.at.:icng•,·< , .<<: from . ,:-,: ~ . (PC) Civil Appeal No. 69/19')7 which arfse from ARUSHA•DIST:lIC'Y:,.f! ,,,• ;,::.,:;::f:'.:.L . T . CIVIL APPEAL NO. 45 OF 1996 -where by iiJ)1:1!ANO MGEHI ( on behalf' of K:m:i.::; ,_, '"·: · l j' "·; -~ ,. ·r' ·· · ·,. • , Katol:iid) h;;,;imft,er ;efeired·'lo a:s·t-he APPLICANT/APPHLANT, fil:e4 a ;-,;tiu:·.-: ;° ). ;\ :" .I Bill of Cohs 1 comprises of 8- -ite'ms tiith a . tetal claii"Q -' sh' 529j 9,08~ . . ; 1 •. against AFITWA .ABIA AYO her5.nafter referr-ed to· as the REilPOI'llJBNT .• :.>·-,·, .· ' : ·::; '\ .. :,.. .. The applicant was··represented by Adv.cate D 1 $etiZa Whilet,he··,ReSr.-- .,, ... pondent engaged. -e'iv:tce;;· of Hr. Ojare Locfnu. ·: '''.°)\ '·. : > . -, ... . ·.... This appJ3.cation proceeded i by way •f writ ten submiissiqns.i · ,B0:t,h\ . 0 . ;,,,); .: , ~~ ... :! r_ ~ ·.:j<r·•,·-. . ·- ·: counsels filed their· ·re·spective ·written subnissic.ns aE ·•rder:eci. py. this.-; ·:,•.: --: ,,.:,,', court, ·.' 't l-1rc '·n'i50{1; 'cisel for the applicant in his writth subnission< .ct.: ')l .. 1:., I :-:." "··\·•··,;.: ·- ·· .. suhnitted that' the appe-11- at the High C.,urt involv'ed' a: lcit :•'f·rBse.arcg'.;j':(-t::.L,: .. :_ :, -··- .. :..... . . . . to both counsels because there were points sf la.1 argued relating to . .:;· 'l-: '..:, . , ;-. .• . . _; '" ... •· . powe:::-s of District cmmiqsioners 1 the law of limitation.regarding,,_- _ _ ,. ;: i"· l Ad-rerse possession and· •f:ieraticm ,y-j_jij:;L• _ He ·fwt.he sul:triitte.d the., • ' •• ~ _ .. I :/ ,-.,. ; .::. i,.· . ... .. II! . . disputed land was :3 acres· and' its value \1 99 (--shs, •. -15 1 OOO;OCJ?/:::: s_o :tP: , :, j . ., •• /2 -·.\ '-.\I ... t

.. . . 2 j'- ·-:-,,, .l. ·.r• :''for Mr, Loomu OjareL.the f \ ... _(;"i .:,. :iiespo_aj_ent in his ·t·eply to the' written sub- . · ._ - .;";:l,;o•••-::tt:-.iJ•:,,,:__•·-;:;••, ')' • -.·'l~.i ' • ' • dh1 mission .rng.,,,y conte·B½,ed' item No,. 1 <t.11::mi\tg'.tt the amount claimed of shs 500,000/= is tqo.rnuch for_P., simpleapea.l He referred this . ' -:·:i . ·. "'-~ """!; 9- ,,. '· -?: .,,i-,-; ;' ·" .'." :., ;.-:. . ., .: . ·' ~ ,:- -- .. . .. court to the judgement 0f the High Ct,m"t'' and the written. submissions of both counsels submitting that the same clearly shows that the appeal was not a difficult one, as the points @f law 1nvlved were quite F· familiar to both Counsels hence not novel peints entailed a let of research so he prayed item No. 1 be taxed at shs. 150 7 100/= and shs. J50000/= to be_ tqxed off. Hr._ 0,jare dces no_t displ,lte the rest of

items ie-. Items rio., 2 - 8 and he prayed the same t• be taxed as pre- , . -: • ,c.: . · .. ., i'' I quiite agree_ vith Hr. ,Ojare tl"\o,tit&ns 0 nt1_<2 - 8 are reasonaqle - and -·•,(;: according t9 the. law,..as provided irithe 0 p!'0visions of GN 55/9* . · .. ' . -:. :._ i ;' .,: ·. ~ t; .. Regarding itel'!l No,. J. I• don 1 t share the sm1e views ·with r-'ll'o. •ojare -- ! -~ - .. ·. that the amount cl_aifned :is tj.>O: much because the disputed land is 3 .... , .. :-: ; .. ,·... '!Ii ' ',, ii:- . . acres and estimated to have a value '.If shs 15 7 0C0 9 000/=,a,fact which was not disputed by Mr. _Ojare., Now coing by scales in GN 515/91 an .,- . ,r.. '-: . . . •. . .'.:. - : . . .. Advocate is eptitted 3% of the value of the property _in dispute :as his ·- '•'•,.. - " . . . " .. ' " , . ,. . . ' . ,,: fees- That being the law _th6n shs,. 500,000/= as instructi•n' feste file and argu the intended appeal i.s. not t,~~ much though it is in the . ' .- . . ·.· · .. ,. _;·( ) high side, the Sarrlf, is reduced. to -· 11.s 4oci 1 too/= and shs 1•J,ooo/;, is • ..,;, taxed i-ff. ':ill!:,: :·.;· ·: ,,..-~- . "' Items no., 2

8 are tmcd as presented because Mr. jare does not !S;,c 'i' . c. 1; di°spute anything .as _he ,±:irids them t.o ~ t•o reasonable. ·, .. ': .. -. In the · final analysis the. whole bill :, .: ,· '· . . "\ J'· : '.·· .' 1 :. ,. ·.. . .· -,-;- . _, :.:. ... ,, of Costs is taxed at shsf 431~ 900/= and shs •ly0 1 0~("". ,i:; tax.~d :fff• It is so 11.bdered. • · lr.ight of Appeal fully expl,ainE;d, '·• . ,.: ,.-, ~ l .. '

.. . . (A¢ C. Nyerere) TA.TING MASI'ER. 04/7/2000 of June 2000 in the presen.:::e of Hr. D I Souza for the Applicant and in the ab,:3ence of hr. Ojare Loomu who. was duly notified, TAXING J:vJi.srER 04/7/2000 ACN/el.,-