Michael Shoo vs Augustino Mohamed and Another (Taxation Cause No.3 of 1999) [2000] TZHC 205 (16 June 2000)

NYE?..ERE 2 T tJi IN TEE HIGH COURT OF TlmANIA'" AT AR-USI-L TJi.JUTION CAUSE NO. 3 OF 1999 . ( c/f Aruslia Il:i:gh Cnurt C{vil 't.ppeal Ne. 7 /98) , .. ... . .. .. :.r.· .. ~ ir:h MICHAEL SHOG · ,; •• o· ••• ; •• -·; ;., •• o •• o /i.PPLICA.lT ... _; :.,,·'. ·... .. \ .. , .. :. : -.J . . n . ~ ·:r· . c . : This is°.Ar\isha High Oourt BilY of Cs Nao· 3/1999 qriginating, from -Arusha High Court (P.G~ :CiviJ/':Appea:.L:)fo., 7/98) w:het·eby HICHAEL SHOO herein after referred to as·;the ARPI:.ICAl:1T·filed:ai Bi.ll.of Costs comprises of 6··itm-s \·1itb a total claim- o:f fibs 420 1 500/= agail--1st AUGUSTINO MOI-IAMZf,AN'D Ai'Jftiru ... s BAH.A l:ere.in,a.:ft•er referred·. to, as the .. h j • • f i.__, 7 • he T c applic::nt en;;ar,ec:. services o · ;t-lilVGCate l.1 1 3"'1JZa vhu.le,•.t . :_. · Respondents were· ih ·pei.sons., The respondents. stront;.'lS uh.jected-. the present Bill· of· Costs :· saying :i.ts 'tfo' high side and they prayed this court to feel pity because as layinen"they did not know about court jurisdiction if they . knew they. -ouid rt;t have filed their --suit--.- at Ka!'.tu. Primary 'Court· to avoid c6sts· '{hey .further hnitted that even the Prd.mary aid the :District Court- Magistrates though learned ,·,in' ·1aw' were 1ot· ·aware· ·· of this fact, they. contend€c1 that. n human' ooing Ts perfect, and. - . insist this cour·t to f&eU pi\y fcir them.----' · :;"" Again they disputed tl,e~~sent·Biii of ·Cots· s'aying.it .. :·is;:--;: :i.ncempetent because it was,.an4 is\1t' signed b'y-··;the APPLlCAtrr:. · neither dces it state if"°ii'Souza''th{'Advodi:t'e signed for the applicant, '~~ they sut.aittecl that omission renders the present Bill .. .., • •·: r-

... i• .... ·: .. .l •. .. . . 2 : : of :,sts incompetent and ouBht t"' be dismissed becuse it was_.drawn arrl prepared by 'l person an advcate who has knoi-Jledge of la.111,. Mr. D 1 Souza Counsel fo1~ the 8P..P1.cant in J::-ri.s Written Subnission replied as follows That item Noa 1 concer.J.-ri.ng instruction f<ae has not been challe- nged but he expect tJ:..at the court wi1:]-··.you its discretion. In respect to items Ho. 3 a_~ 1-l, Mr,. D 1 Souza subm:itted tl-1at its ... · ·r 0 : ·/' lj.~ t , • • . . . true about the jurisdiction issue even Justice 1'h'osso while hearing the appeal on. point of jurisdiction he dAclined to make an.Y order far costs in Primary Court and the ))istict Cot~ Iv~·o D 'Souza c0nc3:-uded_ by subnittilg that, in the High Couit after giving i;,heir notice. of their i...'1.tention to raise the pojnt- • of . . jurisdiction, the respondents :a.ever conceded instead they engag-ed- services of an Advocateo So he had to be well p1·epared Ni th all aspects of his case. The respopd_ents· when, asked ·if· they need to . file .further reply to Mr. D 1 Souza' s written oubnission they both refused saying they have nothing to reply and. ;Le:f.'t everything to the hands of this court. It is a considered vi .... e-w of this court ai'ter going through the .. · ····:· .. suhnission of Nro .D'ouza Counsel for the Applicant and the objections_·· . raised by Resporrlents that the present Bil-'1 of C"sts iter;1 No. 1 has . . . - . . . 1: . never been chaJ.lenged b;y the respondents, bit· under Rule ·1;1 · of GN ~ ., -· - .. ., ,,. 515/91 th.e _ Taxing Master is empowered to g:-ant all costs, - chaiges . ·'· ' and expenses which appea::i.s _·to ha,-3 been necessary and prope1 inC\1I'red by the applicant. Under r?:ule 1:2.-of GN 515(9) Advocates·a.re 'm_t'allowed to 1~eceive or accept renru..'1Brat:Lon ~ore' than w·hat the law provides •. . -., Guided by above principles- of l.aw- I proceed to tax the. pr-esent Bill of Costs as follows • . ., ...

! : . 3 .. 0 • Item No~ 1 is taxed t. shs 30<\ ooo/0:, <3nd shs. 100fooo/= is taxed off. In 1998 instruction fees tai resist an appaal of shs 400 000/= :in is too much taking into consideration f.. the said appeal was disposed f : ; off en point bi' jur:i.sd.ictiono This Court has take into account that instruction Jee.s include all the time spent in researcr..ing the prper J.aws applicable in that appeal* Item No. 2 is taxed at shs 2'500/= :md shs 500/= is taxed ff i.e., I shs 2000/= .f:r. Ad.voe.qt.es t:ransp•rt and shs 500/-== hi_s oppem•_nce c-hrg.es Item No" 3 is truced at shs. 31+00/= and shs., 2600/= iG taxed ff i.e. shs 2000/= Advocates transprt and dis., 1400/== appearance charges at shs 750/= per J, mjJ1.utes as the law prescribeo Items No~ 4 and. 5 a1.·e taxed. as presented oocause those are normal charges prevailing on 1998~ Item N•• 6 is taxed at shs 000/== t,n1y a.rrl shs 3000/== is taxed efi' as per EKhequ,er Iieceipt No. e7470768 elated 11/1/99 when this Bill nf Costs was .filed~ St in,the fin.al ana]_ysis the whole Bill ~f Costs is ta,ed at shs .314 1 400/== and shs. loS,100/= is taxed r-ff. Its. s•~~~);J"6·-··,,:-. c>· e, ,_...,--- ----- '• ... /;- ',Z,

,, 0, //'•' ..... ,. ·· ... -·,, \ \~ 
{z ( Jt - ·" >'}~1~.t .. _· \ ... t \ 
1 
; • r:· 
\ \ T ,•~••,/-,•.~: -~ ,·,1 
. \ ', . ' .,;;, : ,..~ I - • ,, _', 
. 1~ .i;:ht{1),;~ /~ !/ ( A. ·c ~ Ny~rere) 
.. ,~ -------- TAYJJ.'\JG MASTE1 
16/6/2000 
RuJ.ing delivered in chamber this 16th day of June 
1 
2000 in the 
presence tf Mr. D. 
1 
Souza for Applicant and in the presence of both 
Re.sp.;1nd.ents present in personso 
ACN/ei. 
.. 
--· 
(A., c; Ny~r'.~re.) 
TAXING MASTER 
16/6/2000