Balongoje Ishikilo vs Marietha Kishosha (PC Civil Appeal No. 352 of 1992) [1999] TZHC 259 (16 November 1999)

• IN TEE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT ;J! APP]LLATE JURISDICTION (Ianza legistry) - (PC) CIVIL APPEAl ID, 352 OF 1992 • (From the decision of the District Court of Sengeremà. District at Sengerema in Civil Appeal m.26 of 1992 and Kasungamile Primary Court Originsi Civil Case No. 29 of 1991) VERSUS: MAPIETHKISHOSHA a . soo ... oe , 000aao .. o .. oc .. ee RESPOPDENT RU LI NG • MMILL1P. - TAXIM MASTER • This bill of costs has been filed by learned counsel Mr. Bi.tambala on behalf of the decree holder Mr. Balongoje Ishikio, and has been contesd by the judgment debtor one Marietha Kishosha, The bill of costs contains 27 items, Item I concerns fees for seeking legal advice, while item 2 refers to instruction fee. Items 3 to 11 refer to attendace in court, while items 1 to 16 under the heading of disbursements refer to expenses incurred in the course of prosecuting the appeal. On her part, the judgment debtor has asked the court to disallow this bill of costs on the ground that no receipts have been presented further that the rates indicated are on the high side of the scale. It is true that the D/H is not in possession of all the required receipts to enable him prove the bill of costs, items I and 2 inclusive, In item t he claims to have spent shs 4 500/— as consultation fee, and in item 2 he claims shs. 50,000/— as instruction fee. Though these two items are not supported by receipts, at least they are reasonable, and clearly show that .t is possible he spent such amounts for the purpose indicated'. It is true he engage an advocate, and that since he could not have seen and talked to the advocate without paying fee as practice offers, it is clear that he paid some

2 money, How much, is the real problem. tiowever, during the year 1992, shs. 500/- as fee to see and talk to an advocate was quite .xeasonab1e, have believed mm that he did pay that amount. Similarly, in that he has an advocate who represents ham, he could not have enjoyed Ins services without payment 6 The amount of shs.50,000/- indicated t .reiiis not at all unreasonable for matters pegged on land disputes alwas call for extensive preparations.. I thus a.ccept that the said amount of shs,50,0001-. cannot be said is on the high side of the scale. Items I ath 2 are thus taxed as defended . - Items 3 to U refer to attendance in court s The rate was amered to read slis.7001 per attendance, . It being ciear\tha.t the statute hs fied the amount of shs, 7501= per every 30 .ithiute as'r as attendance is concerned, ...... ... . it is unheard to say that the amount is. on the high side of tbeca1e as a.rgued by the J/D. In the circumstances I find thatthefl, the rate of.shs,700/ was. applicable and I accept it. So that for the 9 items of attendance, the amount comes to h.6,300/-, Thus items 3 to U are taxed at sh 8 .6,300/. Items I to 16 in respect of part II of the bill of costs falling under the heading of disbursements are not all receipted. The rate indicated for fare is shs,1000/- frbm Sengerema by bus to Mwanza and back, Howe1er,.i since the receipts orTéF± show that he was being charged shs,200 and at a latter stage shs63001, it means that ferry alone was costing him shs, or 600/= to and fro, therefore that bus fare from Sengerema to and back was between shs600/ and 409/= which means between shs300/ 'ar. 200/= per trip. This cannot be said is on the high side of the scale. In that there are 12 such items the.. total amount comes to shs,12 1 000/=. Items in respect of transport charges are taxed at shs. .12,0001=. U. Items 4 1 8,1.3 and 15 refer to food expenses. The rate shown is sha, 1500/=. These items re pt receipted, and to my views, the rate of shs. 1500/= for lunch is on the high side of the scale. So long as no receipt is available to give me a peg on which to base my decisio9 1 I have nothing to do but to assume a rate of shs,500/- which I think looks reasonable when

3 a I take into consideration the rates of 1992 to 1995 So that for the 1 -f items he ate 1ich here in Mwanza, the ecpenses come to shs,200/=. Over all therefore this bill of costs is taxed at hs.70 7 800/—. Order accordingly 0 .

BM,K, MHILIA. TAXING !'ISTR 17.10.99 Date: 16h November 1999 Cora BM.K 1IL, /M For Applicnt: J/Debtor Mr. Butambala Advocate °Absent but applicant p- _resent. in person. - Respondent/D/Holder Marietba Kishosha - Present in person B/C1erk pestituta -- .,- order - u1ing delivered in chambers this 16th day of November, 1999 in •the-presene of both parties, but in the absence of Mr. .Butmala, leaxned counsel 'foi' the J/H. : AP M!Ar'1ZA: - B.M.K. MILIA. T6..11.99 - -,- TAXI CEBIFICA S I berby- certify thi t be ä true copy of the. original. smi • S - AG. DISTRICT REGISTR.R MWAA 28.8.2000