Renada Mineral Corporation Ltd vs NBC Holding Corporation (Taxation Cause No. 2 of 2000) [2000] TZHC 207 (26 June 2000)

NYffifl1E 1 '1' /IYi IN THE HIGH COUHT OF 1!.Ai.iZ.ANIA ·h,1' ARUSHA_:,.- ., , TAXATION CAUSE NO,t. 2 OF 2000 . (c/f H/C Civil Case )o.61/97) , .. ,;, . . . . ... ~ l''.:. .i ·i .... filiNADA 1•1INEP...AL cor..P0::1ATION LTD.. • •• d ·4F' . - Versus J /DEBI'O.r.i NBC HOLDING- CO:a.POIL!.TIO:if . •• ~ -~ a • ~ •• · D /HOLDER .. RU LIN .. G ., .)i.L::: ·-c.L.+:'!:•1-·:-:Ti:.i'.:r/'. :.:..-:· 1 .:.;· .. ·:...,,ei"jtJ..:- .. :..c.L·, ·=-<i·, -- This is Arusha High Court Taxation Cause No. 2 of 2000 9r:i.g;μiating t':·.! , ··' .. :'. ... ;-.,-···.'T." ;.·'..'::~ r-ri-:. _ ;r•~r:• _ "i,· . .. __ · I ·,;1;.:){·~ 2-::":'.Jf)·!,;•i•f:::; from Arusha High Court Civil Case No. 61 of 1997 whereby N:OC,,HOLDING CORPCHATION he~~Lafte;r}-red to ;-,th. DECRHOLl)k;'Dim~~;;/ ;, APPLICANT hal3 fiife"d -- Biil. of c~~t comprises of 29- ite;:· Jith a totil. ( claim of shs. 17ti34 9 5!:o/= Rgairik:(n.&A.DA ·r-iUJfil?Jrr, CORPORATIO LTD hereinafter referred tfl" as t;h m)GD'1ENT DEBTOR/PLAINTIFF /rrESf>OI-JDNJT ~ The Applicant is represented by 11essrs. L'Jbulu Advocte while the t1 .: .:?" Respondent is repreeted. by ;i. Loomu ·ojare.·"' Both Consel~- filed -.. ,.,.,.;, .. . written submissions 'while gui.ng the .pr:sent Taxation Cause. Mr. Lobulu :i.:n l:1:is ';Jrit:ten submission e'en.tended. that the Civil Case No. 2/2000 was very complexity Ae. had t :evisit volun1es f:Alidi '\ •. ,"·,(· Report to the extent he had tG corinuJ..t Finanial and tax consultanto ... He had to revisit ail <the' :fe'levant iaws applicable to the issue before his client, as ii'"it is not enough the plaint was ameridedl so he· fiad t_• reexamine the whci.le :de.fence e documcirits and th~: laws pplicable i;rhron- 'i '' ' t'1 . ,t: : ,:. ' He ,cited. different statutus wh.i.ch he had to revisit in ord;;; t•' prepe, wr: ~ ten statement Of be fence ·iihfcl 'j as "'-Yild by the.! p;ilc;{. •Re~;...' ~;:-·; :tjfl'. . ',_• . :·/;./i-.:-, ::t:-)/~;.- •,··•.:.'... ,.•:::°([;""'. . ,· rding the sum f shq 6 1 500,000 as instruction fees i..o oppese tmporary · ' · .. ¥. :>1. ..... ).·.r: ·--· ··-· -.,.,,. --r!,-- i ,. Inju.ti:en:1 tir,. Lcbulu submitted· tllat the amount claimed is.,justi.fiable because he had ti-'pikhk ·ti -~~~~~~aih: in "the affid;vi ;Jhii/'~~ppor-tred .. .. ·; .... the Chamber applicit:tb-n °in 'C 1 i\rii' bas~'. No~ 28/98~ • ·r·• .. -·.

r•,• ,• r.• --~ •h • • '"•• •.1:_,-.i:::::••• Mr. Lobulu chncluded by citing the'.f'qm:qtts case of·ujAGAR SINGH a 1968_ ., .. · HCD noi 17;, where the late_Jucige Biron.pointed out to cmrts.that,Ins- ... ', -- . ,••.: . ~ ... ~ . . . . truction fee is for work done ir1 preparing a case for Trial. Apout the Dis1:ursement Mr. Lobulu su:,,tted t,gat., .• ,t,hat.can be verified'frern com"t - -- - ........ . -•·· y• record hence the same should be allm·Jed without much ado. Mr, Ojare for the Respondent in his reply strongly objected the present Bill sub:nitting that it is exorbitant and unconsiable hefty fees~- He does not see the justificu.tion lf Hr. Lobulu. to claim shs. 10 1 539,500/= and 6,500,l)po/~ res,pectively as instruction fees. He cited Hules 40. arrl 45 -f QliI 515/1991 of the Ad.v•!=!ates Remuneta.tiort :arid Taxation of Cos-ts· Ru:les Schd_μle XI •. He,rfu.I:'.ther sul:mitted that the High Court Civil Case No~ 61/97 never proceede<:i, to hearing en merits~·· Hence no witnesses were ever .. c,alled n9r any vidence was ever terrlered" So he sul;mitted that far t main suit an i...ri:struction fees fer·, shs • . :.: .3 50, 000/.: is enoufsh to. compensate the Counsel fer kpplicant ·for the work clone/ services rend,ered .. ·, As rega.rds the Chamber Applicati4ilfl }ire Ojare subnitted that shs. ·, :· .. '.,, 1507 ooo/~ is suffice and requested the court to decJ.ir13 to grant shs. i'I ... 6, 500000/= as being il}egal aJJd to support his arg-wnent. He cited .:,+ Rule 12 of GN 515/91 wl:-J.ich str·:Lc-t:.:,y prohibits Advocates frrnn taking "' .. ::. •.) .,• .·· ..... remunerat::,n mbr_. than that provided by the Rules, Mr. Ojare conced_ed to ite1:is 3,45,6 1 ?,8,9 1 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,, 17 ~ 18, 19 7 2D 1 21 1 22 7 23:, 24~ _5,,26l;j'27, 28 and 29 (and the- same are taxed as presented)., taxed at shs ; - ~ .. . He conciuded that the -·,,: ' . • . 595,oJ= only i--rhole taxation cause should be In further reply Mr ... Lolu El]rpressed· his di;appinted. ·.· "ai ..• '. ,. . .• . . .. . . ,· . • . ,& cited three JI\ore case laws apart from UJAGA."i=t SINGH Case to emphasise -en Instruction fe:~ and .the _ cliscretion of the Taxing Master, and ~ :· ~./. . . what 6onstitute Instruction fees ani the ge!7-eral principle _underlying ~ . all cases of taxation and insisted that he prays his Bill t:o be ·taxed as presenteli because _i\ ~;s tbtlsonant with the principles •f Taxation,. --.

/... • . . " . . . . . ·The issue before rue i.s whether the present taxation is to• -big" i::Ul1ount to oe truced as presented. L0oking at the Bill and a closer and proper scru:biny to both written sub-nissions as filed by Defence Coun.sels 7 starting with item Nos 1, without hesitation I wbuld say the amount claimed is too much taking into consideration the RuJ.es governing taxation c.auses i.e. GN · 515/91. Rule of the said GN empowers tne=: Tro:ing Mastr to award aJ.J. costs and fees and charges etc incurred reasonably. At the same tirne Rule 12 of Gl-J 151/91 prohibits Advocates .from accepting remuneration more than what these au1es_ prov.ides. It i-Jould be ;['air and just i.f . •:f : - ,. ··. . Mr. Lo bulu incl:i.cated. or ;6if1t the --o'Vi.s_ion ,?f" tl~~ :aw"' i.11:5-ch ~~w him to accept a collosal sum of money a:s Instru<'!tion fees for defending the applicant I totaly agree with him that h~ had to carry out an . ' extensive research in order to prepare -the wri.tten statement of de.fence but still payment shs~ 10 1 53S\ 5~®'/,;, ai;.d · 6 1 50CT1'JfYJ/. for relist the chamber applicat:Lon is not justifiabie'. he ·'saih is taxed at shs 500 1 (00/ = and shs. 10 0JS\ 500/==- is taxed o.fL T~':::-·e' ·{~ no reasonable er propable c2t1se ad.vaY-"ed to :onvince the court to ai:,Jard such E:X' . .:bitant amount. An appJ..-i cation to resist application· for injuction is not a complexity matter to warrar+ . .qn experience J.e: 0 :J·ned Advcca.te to charge an amount ,.f shs. 6,500 1 000/= the amount is too much and unheard eff so the same is reduced to shs. 200 1 000/= and shs. 6 1 300 1 000/= is trucedtt.ff. Items :N•. 3 - 29 are not disputed the same are taxed as vresented. So in the final anaJ:.ysis the whole Bill o.f Cests ~s truced at shs. 793 1 040/= and shs 16,300 1 000/= are taxed tt[f. It is so ordered. Right of Appeal is fully explained. ... ... /4

-·- -- , ... ,1 .... -1. ... ' ... - 4 . () .. .. '•}:_ ·'.i. <=:P0J. -, (A" .C'o Nyerere) TAXING l·1ASTEf/. 26/6/2000. • (. • •• :I:.• j, ----•------ T-- ~ '.!•:~ • _________ :,._llf •• '• • • ---- '•·---~ ~ - ....... -·--·--·