Reliable Court Broker & Auctioneers vs Director Frankfruit Zoological Society and Another (Taxation Cause No. 37 of 1999) [2000] TZHC 582 (16 June 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT ARUSPi.A TAXA7ION CAUSE NOa 37 OF 99 (c/f Hic:;h C6urt Civil Revision NG/6/98) RELIABLE COllRT r;-:•WKER & AUCTICNEERS ... o APPLICANT Versus lo DIR~TOJ"1 ffii-lJKFRUIT ZOOLOGICAL . ·. ~ ·s()(}l.Ei'Y· 0 < :· e • ~ O ~ •• 1' O 4 0 • ~l· ·o 0 G .. o o O' D O 4 a o 0 J /n :IBT oa

R-·U Ti I N G . r,··. r · .. _ (l (). : This is·P.igh Gourt .. of Jl.rusha-'Taxation-C.aμse No. 37 /99 oristing : . • . . • • • . • .... ~ • tJ. . •• !1 . . -r_t 0- .. ") . frora Eigfr Cqurt Civil Revision No. 6/98 \·1he1,;eby RELIABLE COI.JJ:r BJ.OKER ·_ .. . . . " '.: . . . .... & AUCTIOOEERS .here b,y referred. to as the APPLICANT iled a Dill of .. Costs comprises cf 7: items· With a totaL .. Cr;l..ai.'11 of "shs 2,954, 896/= .,. • • --· • .. t• a 6 ainst CLIFOR.p MUFlJHGO he;.•einafte1· refe1;ed • as the 2nd Re"sp•:rl-e~~ -,..:_ and DLTO.R F.F'i.ANKFRUIT ZOpr!)G-IC.AL SOCIEI'Y_ here:L.7after referred to as. the 1st Respoent. : r, t·:r~ '; This appJ-ication proceeed _b way of itten subn±ssions. Mr. D 1 S.uza counsEill for the 1st Ilesp'?1er\ iled his-:r,.itten 1;. sul:mission on 25/h/2000 ap.d he. had. three issues to dis"ti.ss: 1. ··•t Whether -the Dill of Costs i;· prop·ylY:: .f~~~- 1/1 the Iligh Court. 2. Whetr. the Di.rector, Frankff}ft Z><:>}-ogical Society is P-perl.y j,i,ined .in the Bille 3o t·Jhet_her. the B:iJJ... io not gr-essly excessive and unsubcrtantiated In arguing·the lst.-i.ssue. Hr D 1 Souza Counsel.:For 1st Respondent annexed a Ru.U....'1.g by Hon. I"1rosso Jud. 0e in Arusha High Court Civil Revision No • ., ,I • • I .. ,... ....

• . !,..•

. . . . . Ar~ D I Souza su ani tted that the said Ruling Hon. Justice Erosso '-'i . ... .· . . . did not make any order of costs in favoU:i.~ ox the court broker nor the Decree Holder Nr, i•go Ile further· went, __ o~' to''-q_uote what Hori., Judge said and I quote: "Since the respondent is not to blame for these revision proceedings I make ifO orp:er for Costs 11 ~ ,_-, __ · _ j -- --,,:- . "'"· ' Mr. D I Seuza went further to subnit that 'the preS!ynt BiJJ .. of" Costs ·~ is a result of C0urt, broker attachment c:if a· motor vehicle TZK 6558 as ordered by District Court o:f J.i.rusha in Misc_. C;LviJ. Application. No'° 1/98 · an order which was later rai..sed by .. the same Court after the Arusha --'.: . . . High Court .in Civ:t1· Review N.o. 2/98 ·ordered t"b..at the 8.ttacbment, should . ~ . . . ~ ·,. ~ . lapse. St Mr. n- 1 Suza conte_nded that'-·the Court broker in attacu.ng and releasing the said I-lotor Vebi.cle was: acting on orders of. the .-t•i' · ].' · ·l District Cot1rt Arusha and that is 1r1be;·:he should have filed tins Bill •f Costs. Mr. D I Souza p:rayed the ·present:oo struck off with q()sts. , . On the second issue lJr. D I Sel.i.Z ·submitted that the court bcoke,r was engaged by the Decree Eolcler to rend.ei- services and the Decree •- Holder must pay hi.i'1l_. He cited the case of HI.;iJI VS .. S., G. AI;BHAI. (1974) LdR.,T Noo 13 whe1eby Ju..stice Onyiuke spelt out clea.11y that it (. is the obligation of the Decree Hlder _ te pay the court broker.. He further cited makes similar the present statutery law i .. e. G..-N .. <-.:315/97 Rule 7 whidh ,_ (I ;::>revision to Eule 1(21 .of 1964 which has been revealed · or revoked by the same is replaced~.by GN 315/97 Rule 7 which embodied the above cited case. , 0 Lastly on alternative to 1st and 2nct-'±ssues f'lr., D'Souza submi- tted that the Court b1~oke:c grossly inflated the value c-f the .second hand bandRover wluch he attached. He submitted that shs fifty . ;. .. million can get us t110 new Land.Rover 110. · He subnitted that the value of a second hand Landl.fover 110 should not be'more than 8 2 000 9 000/== .. ....

... . . 3 . .. .. Mr. D'Sbuza admitted .items Uo •. 1 & 4 _th~ rest of i.tms ioe Noc2 2 3 5/i . • . ., . . .. . :-j;. " , .. and 7 ,'\Jere strongly objected/clispt,<i submittin.g that -bhey are unece-

• .. ·. ·;,-·· '. :..'! ··,. . ' ssary c•-sts .and infl.atecl: .. ones,. ' The 2nd Respondent tot~ der.ied the present Bill of Costs subn- • • ~ C. t; .e---:·~--r :- : •. . . itting that. the court broker ,;,~~s vrdered by the Court to executing · •·"' • • • • • r • • , the attachment erder. He joined hands with the submission of tk ·J·st ':> • • • • •• Respondent that the preset Bill CJf Costs is 1rn-ongly filed in tfus · •• • ; ••• f court. And that ~he applicant was-. ordered by the court to ~ttach .. ,. Judgement debtors veh:i.cJ.e and. that he stayed with it for three ·months he concluded that the fact Uiat he was not getting his ~~aim through the ~pplicq:nt/<?ourt:_ bI'.oker the;n he is not responsible f6r thi D.ill of-·-·. .. ~ . Costs. In short that I s the sumissions of: 2nd. Re-sponp.ent; After going through the SIJ.bmission ·of both par{ies its a c·onsi- : dered view of this court th,.1.tr the applicant erred: i\n :filing tlu:s· Bill." of Costs in this Court. t. .. · .•. ··•·• Because the RU:::i..r... 6 in Arusha ·High Court C1:v:il .. Re"'r-si•n No. 6/;8 which gave rise to the present Bill of Costs never award costs to an,y party it.- be-. :th& AppJ,:d..cant CLIFFO:IID MUFUNGO nor Respondent. DLECT0l1 FR.fil'JK:li.tfi'F..· :Z00L.WICAT.. SCCIEI'~ & E,.A.,F.:&;rIU>JAL OFFICE the last parat:,raph of the snd Ruling states ?rt_d I quote: 11 Si.nce the Re-sporuient is not to blne for thes'e revision proceedings$ I make no or,ie"r ·for -"costG. II This pagraph has spelt out, in very clear terms tr.i.at :q.one -•f the· .. parties is awarded Costs., 3o it goes': without say that the present is not properly filled in this court Hence it ought to be struck off wfutK. cost~. OR in alternative even if it be served to be properly ):ie-f•re this <tJurt still the same -:i.:s t:eo excessive and no court of lau can entertain it.
• ••• /4

.. .. . 4 . . . . :2.egarding the 91estim1. o.f joing the 2nd D.espondent 1 with the present Bill of Costsr, I would like be lrno11m to ooth par'ties that the party responsible fo1~ court broker fees/claim is the Decree Holder as per GN 315/97 .Rule ''7 inf~~:t its unfo::..tunate th2.t the Appli- cant/Ceurt broker brouG,ht h.is -lai1/in a wren.g Ceurt. Thi.s court cann.ot entertain a present Eill of Costs because as stated earlier no Costs werB awarded irl Higl1 Cot C::'.vil Revision No. 6/98. I decline t& say much on the issue ··of Quaxitum because it is wasting of this cour_ts previous' time hailig said'·the applicc:.tion is • incompetento at A.HUSHA DisrRICT COURT where ljy th~ . Ord.er .for a€tachment was issued inrespect of Misc. Civil Application 1 tio. 1/981 which again raised the attachment. Its so ordered. Right···9;t P.P.~~ )'U)J-y' e:xpiained .. ,·:·:...,,'•,-- ·--· •• .... Jt:;"•1 - _, • /.. •~/ ;": -: / . '"'t:" :. 'i (A,,. c. Nyerere) . TAKING. HAST.ER 16/6/2C'JJO: Ruling delivered.this 16th day of June:- 2000 in the presence of Nr. D I Souza for liesl?onci.ent and in the absence of Ceurt broker. :.' ,.t :·:r- .. - ---· ···: i '·, (A.,. C ~:;Nyefere) T .AXING I-IAsrill 16/6/2000 ACN/el. • ., ...; '"'. ,. .. . . • ... , •