Michael Shoo vs Auguatino Mohamed and Another (Taxation Cause No. 3 of 1999) [2000] TZHC 583 (16 June 2000)

NYElERE 11 Tf1:1 n-1 TEE HIGH COURT OF Tfi.NZANIA . AT ARUSIL!l -"' ·TAXATION CAUSE NO. 3 OF 1999 (c/f Arusha High CPurt Civil Appeal No.7 /98) MICHAEL SHOO 6-oooa:•oeoc,ooeooaoco.o, Versus 1- AUGUSTI!JO MOHAMED 2., ltiJANIAS BABA ) ' , ()t,_: : R U'L I N G •; , .,-, ' . .r- .. ,· APPLICAlIT RESPONDENTS This :tsi Arusha High Court Bill of c..,sts No .. 3/199.9 QI'.ig:iJlating from Arusha High Court· '(P·.C,; ·civ:il, Appeal Nci., 7 /98). whei.eby MIPI-iAEL SHOO herein after referret'(t:a"-as the-- Af'PLIC:Ai1T: filed'_:·.a Bill· of·.Costs 1 .. -.. • , •• • , - • ••.·•. I ,:.'--• • .c: comprises of 6 iterr;s 1,11:th a totai cla::iin --r:,f shs 420,-'JOO/,,,, against AUGUSTINO MoHJU,iED··.Al® .Al'JjtlITAS· BAH.A 1:fereiri after referred to as the RESPONDENTS~:.- Thr applic:.nt engaced sences: 0 °bf Mvccate -11 1 .';:.--uza. while the The respondents·· stror1f:l.Y uh,ject-ed thA present Bill saying its •on high ·side arul ''they·'J)rayed this COl:lrt to feel pity because as layine'rt·they did nt--kno1--about court jurisdiction if they knew they would not have· filed··their-::suit at- :Karatu Primary 'Gourt - . to avoid costs.: -They further stilrnittea that,even.we· Priinaryarrl the District Court Magistrates 't1>lough :1earf.ied :in law .eiere not-_.:awe of this fact, they· contenclea? that n~ . htunan-.·ba~·is · p.erf-e9t_, '1;1J;rl __ :' insist this corir( to fe'el pity for them •. :_:> Again t1ley disputed tbe ·prese~t Bifl cff. Costs ·saying -it·.is• inctmpetent becaus·e it was. and::.·is ~ot siened. :,b-j . the APPLIC:Aiirr: _t; neither dtes it state if D 1 Souza the Advocate signed for tli.e ' applicantt sa they sui::roittecl that omission renders the present Bill ••• /2 ., .. - ., - ..

: : 2 .::. l'· . . D • of ,.,sts incompetent and ought t 1::B dismissed because it uas drawn .· ~ •:_.'·:. and prepared by 1. pe-ron an advl!-:lcate ·who ··has knowledg of lar .. Jv.ir. I) 1 Souza Counsel foi the applica.,."lt d.1{ his :Written Subnission .; t" replied as follows~ That i tern lfoo 1 concerning instruction fee·~s \iot been challe- nged but he expect tr,at the court will you its discretion.. In respect to· items Ho. 3 and 4. Mr ... D 1 "3o~ ,su·brn:i.tted that its . . -- - . ·. ~ true about the jurisdiction issue even Ju::.tice fb:'ds.so while .hearing •. : ,. .. • j. : • ~ \ . the appeal on point of jmisdic tion he deciin_d . Y?· m5iJ<, an,y order far costs in Primary Comt and the District Court,. -. :: . . ... , , ' .. .., . JvL. D'Souza concluded by· subnitting that, in the Iiigh._Comt • . ·: •. ·!. ! . - after giving their notice of their intention!. to raise the point of jurisdiction• the respondents never __ concd~§i. inste[;;ld they engaged ·

• , ,,. ·: . ·.· . servicei of an Advocate., So he had to be well p1·epared w:i. th all aspects of his case. The respondenti:f-t1l1Bi·t asked if:. they nee~ to file ..fu,r_ther r_eply . :,r .. ·--. ·,"I_,·· ' .,. . () to fJ.ir; D 1 Souza' s writ ten ouhnia&i9n. hy both r~~{~~<:, saying they have nothing to reply and. lc.+.'t ev1ything/00 "the hi:1:nd's 'of this court. '/ . ,. ... .,- ' It is a considerecL:r..!.BW of' this court after going through the submission of Mr~- D 1 Souza Counse;I. .:t:or t_b.e Appli9911~ and the objections raised by Responients that the present Bill of.., Cc:-sts item No. 1 bas ··":··- .. . ·~. .--, never been chaJienged b;/ the respondents, ._!:llt}mder Rule.11 of (]'o 515/91 the Trucing Master is epowered·to grant_fil'J, .fosts 1 charges
• -::i and expenses which appear.i:f'::to··ha,·e beer.t nece-ssar? -and proper .. ?,J-1.cm,?·d by the applicant. Under l'?.u:Le 12 of GN 5;() Adv9cate 9 arE? not all·owed to receive or acc.ept _rerrn.1.ner:ation. mCl:re th®. _what the la1.i'provides. .. .•· .. :; .-, ... , - :: · .:-..:.J . Guided by above p1inciples of lai-1 I proceed to tax the _μcesent Bill of Costs as follpJ _.,. ':. . :O: ..

3 . . 0 • Item No. 1 is trou"d ;:i_t. shs 1()'\1.-Vn/_ .. ::inn shs,. lC'OyOOO/= is truced off. In 1998 inst,1·nct.:;..on fees tt resist an appeal of shs 400: 000/= in is too much t.aking into consideration i the said appeal was disposed off -ln point ef jurisdiction~ This Court has take into account that instrnct.J on .fees j_nclncle all the time spent in researching tl1e pr•per laiivS applicable in that appeal~ Item No. 2 is taxed at shs 25DO/=~ ::i.nri shs 500/ = is taxed -.ff i.e. " sbs 2000/= .f•r Advo0.i:it.r-,s -L1.·,:1nsp•rt .and shs 500/~ hi n 1-.1v.f.>~~c1J:A.l~A :;.t,.,.-F-RRo w, Item No 3 is taxed at shs. 31 1 00/-., :ind :::;hs .. ?.600/= i3 taxed 't,;,ff ~ i.e~ shs 2000/= Ad.vacates transpe1rt and shs6 1400/= appearance charges at shs 750/= per 3~· m:inutes as the law prescrioo,. Items No. 4 and 5 are taxed as present6d 1::ecause those are normal charges pre,railing on 1998n Item N~. 6 is taxed at shs 2000/= Qnl,y am shs 3000/= is taxed •ff as per Ex:chequer Receipt No-~ 'e,7470768 dated 11/1/99 when this Bill nf Costs :was filed. si in the /inal a.Iia.J..ysis the whole Bill 4f Costs is taxed at shs 314400/= and shs. :J.o5 1 100/= is taxed <"ff. I ts s: -.ordered. 1h (Ae ·c~ Nyerere) preeence 1f Mr., D 1 Souza for Applicant and in the presence of both \ ~sp.mdents present in persons., .ACN/e1 .. .J ( A,. C,, , Nyer.ere) T /lTING MASTER 16/6/2000

·-:;... 0 • .. .. , , .. , .•• , •• 1• ',