Renada Mineral Corporation Ltd vs NBC Holding Corporation (Taxation Cause No. 2 of 2000) [2000] TZHC 528 (26 June 2000)

NYEREP..E 1 T jl,1 IN THE HIGH C0UHT OF 1l.AJ.ZANIA AT AIWSHA TAXATION CAUSE NOo 2 OF 2000 ( c/f H/c Civil Case No.61/97) REN.ADA i'lINE?..AL COfLPOTI.ATION LTD •. •• ,u J/DEBTO..T-t Versus:: NBC HOLDING CO:H.P0ll.4.TI0i:J o • • o •• : ~ ~ G D/HOLDER .l- This is Arusha High C_qurt 'J)axF1-tton,r:C?,μsE:i. No., .. 2 of 2000 •t:Lg.:inaM.:ng -:, from Arusha High..Co1;tv-!:t,Civil C3a 9 e. No. 6J,.,.of,.l-997 whereby;NOC HOLDING· CORPG1ATION hereir1fJ.f,:j:.er )+tJEJr;req, t9 j3.S , t.he :DF;JitEB,,,HOI.D.ER/DEFJITID:f.J:'11' /: ·< i'c-• APPLICAN1' has f:i)J-e.djt~:i.J),,o.f yost, s::op:1pr:se,s..9i' ?9 ite_ms .with .q. to:taL. · claim of shs .. 17, U4v L,p/::;, p,g:ip.9t,)}illAD.A 1-UNER(U, CORPOR.ATIQ;f J'..TD .. hereinafter r f trr:rt<t};,,e'.. 09•'.l;t-,].;J<:) ,JU'D9i4j'.r PBiB'L'OR/PLfl.D'JTJFF/UE&PONDN,-IT •. :· •.'. · .. The Applica.qt,: is r,epresented. b;y'• liiessrs. ·Lopμ:t.u_.Advooate2,whileI,~~ Respondent is rJ:l;)f.y.,Elntd written submissions while l!'::·:·_t'!·-.: ;;)i::,::.<i ·:··,:,:.:_ b_y_hr., L9(Jlll1,1,0,jq.p,e. _.-Both yo\ll1ses filed ,:--

• . - -· - . arguing the .presnt Taxation Cauf3e. : ... •, - '' .:. . .-' .. , __ ·,;: :.... .. .• .. Mr. Lobulu in his vJritten submiss::;...on contended. tbat. the .. Civil Case .. · ;1,-:-:'i~-. '---•-- .,:. •. :·,· .r·, ; r<·.- ..... :·· ·- .:· ·.·'.,·,·:· ;; __ : __ ,,:_ ·,,::,· ,,,__.,,,_ :.'.'..-" . .,.:·., -···- . ··-.( No. 2/2000 was very ompxY-,:.'.8,•fil9-:J'.s,,revisit vol1.1JJ1~~ qf,-Au.di,-:t,: ..., Report to the extent he had t,c., cant-1ul.t Financial and. ta:;E ,c..9nsμltant::; •.. ,. ·" He had to revisit a.J,l 1 the :,relevant laWf3 apPliial:?le :to J,.he is$U;e: 1:efore :oo.':::·--· .' .. · - ,,.·. •• . . . .. ·. . .. his client, as ;i.f i t),1:3. not enough_ the plaint was. arl)ended, so he. _had; 11· _; ,. ,.!' . . ·. ,· . . .. t• reexamine the _whole 0 defence documents and,;the lavTs app).icable ti.here.on. ,! ., ' ·-' ·-·- t - , .. ... _. ·. ·- He cited differen .::ta,tut1.1,? wt.: .. i:l-eb,e)1ad :·o:.reyisit :in. ordl;<f, t,.- prpe., written statement of Defence whichyJas filed by the ,applic9-nt.. Reg-B,,-e<• .. u. - • . . .. :, . ... . '. . . ,• .. ···- rding the sum ,ef .5;hs; .6,500,000 as inst-ruct_io:p. fees i.9,-oppese tmporw.y ~ 'l...t_(,_ "1-\·'·t'- .. .1..1•-•j:·-····•";"•' ·, ·_:·, ·, ·:. • Inj11.A:t:.an,1· Hr.:,J-,o~~ sJ.J,pmit;ted t·.1at ._ the .,amo1,1nt .cla_i,ei•:.:is-;u,stifiable '.,,," 1:ecause he had to prep.we 11 pa,ra,.g;aph ig .th<?;-.affiq.&:vit wh:i9h .s;uppor .'•,.J -,_,•.,.:.. a,;;,.::::, -• • ...,J-.• ... -.,. ·-'·•~·-<.·.-.;,,l . .:::- .-,' • : · .• ' .. ••··•j,.J•--•-· the Chamber application in Civil Case No., 28/98, ., .,, _, .. ~ ., - .. . :.

VJrl Lobulu o,ncluded by citing t,hi:? .. fame~$ ;·ase-of UGAR. SINGH a 1968 HCD noi 173 t'lihere the late judge B:uon pointed out to c_,ourts that In ; truction fee is for work done in preparing a case for Trial.· About the Disl:Jursement Mr. tobulu s--ubm:i.tted thatr ,that, can be verified fr<lm cotU"'t record hence the same should l::e all6wed without much ado. Mr. Ojare for the Respondent in his reply strongly objected the .· .. : '''ft ... present Bill subnitting that.it is exorbitant and unconsiable hei'ty ; ~ . ~ . '. : . .. ; : ; - . . . . fees. He does not see the. justification &f Mr. Lobultl. to claim shs • • I •• • i .. '·>•.· . 10,539, 500/= and 6, 50@,hod/ = respectively as iri.struction fees~ He cited Hules 40 arrl 45 'f GN 515/1991 of the Adv6cates Remuneration and Taxation of Cs-ls RuJies ScheduJ.e Y.1~ He further suhnitted that the High Court Civil Case No. 61/97 never proceeded to hearing in me:rits. Hence no witrtesses were ever, caJJ..ed nor any evidence was ever terrleredt So he su];:mitted that for the main t an. instr 1 .1ction fees f•l\ shs. 3 50, 000/.:. is enough to compensate the Counsel fer Applicant for the work clone/sevices rendered. As regards the Champer .Applica,ti1iH1 Hr,. Ojare sulmitted that shs.: 150r000/,,,; L\suffi8.and:equested :che s;ot to-qecJi,nc to grant shs. 6,50(\000/= as 1:::eiJ?:g;_iJ_legal and tq_Si.l.pPOft his gulnenti He cited Rule 12 of ·GN 515/9--vriicl:1 strict:,y prohibits Adv4cates from takinis . . .,. ' .. - ~ .. remuneraVJ~n more than tll§i.t provided JJY,t4e Rules. ,. .· . ·"· ·--.. ; '..:. ' .. · .' ' 1'lr. Ojare conceded to it<31:1s 3, 4, 5, 6 1 .7,J!,, 9, 10,-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16;,. •r . . . ~ . . -· . ' 17 91 -l8 7 19 7 20s21 1 ?2,,23,,:Zf1-,~5,Z,6;~27Y28 ~d 2.,9 (and the same are taxed -~13 li,.: ,· . - .. . 1:• .. ,.,·.. ,,. . . . . presented),. taxed at shs He concluded that ·,·:-,-- .. 59 5 7 OCX) / = ,-'~Y• _ , ... • .... • -k .... __ , -- . the, wJi.o+e taxation cq.use. should be" -,.',,,. In .ftJ.rthe r:p:1.l,r1r .. .i?1l~ xp;~~~~sd .. !4? .i,sappointeg._, }fo ,,; !'; :;'>:·., ·• l_ .· cited three JI\ore c,..s1s,e_laws #part !x::,2m, UJAQ,AJL__:SllGH Cas~ :tg_e_mpSf.-Se .. ·"--. -- ., .. ·- · .. -. . ·-. ' , .... -- ·- . . . en Instruction fees and, tp.e ·cii.scre;tion o;f the -'I'a:idng .M,:;tster.,., and '. .. ·: -~ ;· ;·, :i ··-;.~ : -'.:.. ,- • __ .: - . ··'..... -..;. .. .:,:. .. -. . . ,,J . , .:_;· •. L-'· ~ .. - ---· "'-, -:-· what 6onstitute Instruction fees arrl ,the,geperal., priμ-ciple .uerlying - ·- ·, .. ·,- l~~--. ··.· .• ., •• , ·. • , , - ___ ll gasee Qf __ :t9¥.ation and .insi.s:ted-tbat- he ·praYs his Bill--Eo -be-truced as presentea because it-c·-.s consonant with the principles,,,ef Taxation. r

. . . . •• . . The issue befdre me is whether the present taxation ii:s to• big amount to oe taxed as presented• Lvoking at the Bill and a closer and proper scrutiny to both written sub'nissions as filed by Defence Cou.nsels 1 starting with item No. 11' without hesitation I wcu+4 say the ain6unt claimed is too much taking into considerattori the RuJ.es_ governing '.taxation causes i.e. GN 515/91. RuJ.e of the said GN empowers the Tro::ing Masttr to award· all costs and fees and charges etc incurred reasonably. "' . At the s:a:me t±me' Rule 12 oJ, μJ."\f J5i(91 prohibits Advdctes .from accepting remuneration more than what tJ::ws l'tules provides,.· · It wi.ud 'be lrair · and just ,if ,:;. 11.rr-o Lobulu indicated or mentioned the pronsion· oJ tl;e" law which alllw him to accept a dollosal sum .of money. as Ihstrution fees- for defending the applicant~ :;: tota1y agree witi1 llim 0 tf1at he had to carry out an extensive research in !>rder to. preparJ·-£~~ wr:Ltten statement of defence bu,:, still payment shs~ 10 7 539 1 5G / ='=· :~~' •.6, 5G'C\ 0(YJ / = for relist the chamber application is not justifiable :the same is taxed at shs 500 1 (00/= and shs. 10 1 . 0J<j\ 500/=- is truced. off. There is no reasonable •r propable d d t . th t t d h 1 • I< c2..u.se a -va.r·e o :onvince e cov.r o awar sue Ex:_.:':J1.tant amount. An app1..; cation to resist application .for injuction is not a complexity matter to warrarit ::i.n experience J_e@·nsd Advccate to charge an amount "f shs. 6,500 1 000/=- the amount is._too much and unheard off so the same•is reduced to shs, 200 1 000/= and shs. 6 1 300,000/= is truced off. Items N•• 3 - 29 are not disputed the same are ta.,ed as presented. So in the final analysis the whole Bill of Costs is taxed at shs. - 793,040/= and shs 16,J,00 7 000/= are truced •ff It is so ordered 4 Right of Appeal is fully explained.

ACN/el,. _,,, ,' ,) --~ -r-· J . J J .. ··1·1rf; · .: _ · ·, ,~.-:/1:r..t ..... , .. ..-: •·:. -- _ r· (A"> C'o · l'JyereJ'>e )' · TAXING l-iASTEl 26/6/2000 ' (: --- .. ,..-=---'-' I