Abdulatifu Salum vs Saada Mohamed [1991] TZHC 11 (1 August 1991)
Judgment
Abdulatifu Salum vs Saada Mohamed [1991] TZHC 11 (1 August 1991)
Reported
Share this document on WhatsApp opens in new tab __ Share this document on X opens in new tab __ Share this document on Facebook opens in new tab __ Share this document on LinkedIn opens in new tab __ Share this document by email __
__Save
Report a problem
Is there something wrong with this document?
Problem category *Incorrect informationMissing informationNo PDF downloadDocument is emptyDocument is not accessible on my deviceOther
What's the problem? *
Your email address *
CancelReport problem
__
- Share
- Report a problem
__
Abdulatifu Salum vs Saada Mohamed [1991] TZHC 11 (1 August 1991)
Copy citation __Save
- __Document detail
- __Related documents
- __Citations 1 / -
Citation Abdulatifu Salum vs Saada Mohamed [1991] TZHC 11 (1 August 1991) Copy Media Neutral Citation [1991] TZHC 11 Copy Court High Court of Tanzania Law report citations
1991 TLR 119 (TZCA) Copy
Judges Kaijage, D.R. Judgment date 1 August 1991 Language English
Summary
Court reduced the respondent's instruction fee and halved unsupported travel and lodging claims when taxing the bill.
Flynote
-
Civil procedure — Costs
- — reasonableness of instruction fee
- — taxation in absence of judgment debtor
- — Taxation of bill of costs
- — travel and lodging allowances
Read full summary
Unlock this feature
Sign up to save documents, read summaries and access more features.
Already have an account? Log in.
__
Ask AI
Ask questions and understand this document faster using AI.
__Ask AI
Skip to document content
Kaijage, D/R:. This ruling is subsequent to the judgment delivered by this court (Mapigano) on 14/6/90 in which the appellant, judgment debtor is these proceedings, was condemned to pay costs. In appeal, the judgment debtor was represented by Mr Massati, learned advocate, and the respondent/decree holder was represented by Mr G Kessaria. On 2/2/91 when the case came up for taxation, the judgment debtor for no apparent reason did not put up appearance. To this, Mr Kessaria was allowed proceed ex-parte. H Mr Kessaria has filed a bill of costs entailing a total of 46 items. In his submission he has contended that items 2-20 are according to scale and that they should be taxed as presented. The sum of 50,000/= has been charged against item No. 1, which is for instructions to oppose the appeal. It is Mr I Kessaria's submission that the charged amount is justified taking into account
KAIJAGE D/R A the fact that the grounds of appeal involved the interpretation of various sections of the Rent Restriction Act, Stamp Duty Act, and s.8 of the Registration of Documents Ordinance, cap 117. Mr Kessaria has tendered a list of authorities which he relied on, and which in these proceedings has been marked "A". B I have had an advantage of going through the record of appeal and I have nothing to fault Mr Kessaria's contention that, the appeal involve the interpretation of various provisions under the Rent Restriction Act and the Contract Ordinance. This, however, is not to suggest that the appeal itself involved complex issues of law. C Similarly, I am not suggesting that Mr Kessaria did absolutely nothing in preparation of, and in arguing the appeal. Having regard to the nature of the appeal, the amount involved, and the party who will bear the costs, I am of the considered view that the sum of 28,000/= (twenty eight thousand) is reasonable and justifiable under the D circumstances. Thus, the sum of 22,000/= is taxed off on this item. The amounts charges on items No. 22-47 are not supported by any receipt. This, by implication I have taken note of the fact that the decree holder is, and was a resident of Morogoro Region. E Therefore, there is no doubt that he, the decree holder, used to travel to and from Morogoro as and when required by the court. What is rather problematic in this aspect, is that exact amount spent as bus fare. Indeed, it is common knowledge that buses to and from Morogoro are running almost every day until late hours of the day. I F have found no justification in Mr Kessaria's submission warranting the award of the amount charged as lodging and boarding. At the same time, one cannot ignore the possibility of a decree holder having spent some nights in Dar es Salaam. On the basis of these brief observations, I am prepared to tax items 22-47 at 50% of the amount charged G against each item. Finally, I tax the entire bill at 34,425/50 and 27,100/= taxed off. H Order accordingly.
A
__Related documents
More documents like this one
__Suggestions generated by AI.
Unlock this feature
Sign up to save documents, read summaries and access more features.
Already have an account? Log in.
▲ To the top