ABDULATIFU SALUM v SAADA MOHAMED 1991 TLR 119 (CA)

ABDULATIFU SALUM v SAADA MOHAMED 1991 TLR 119 (CA)

Court High Court of Tanzania - Dar Es Salaam

Judge Kaijage D/R

30th August, 1991

Flynote

Taxation of costs - Nature of the case, amount involved and the party who bears the

costs ought to be taken into account B in taxation of costs.

-Headnote

The judgment debtor the appellant, was condemned by the High Court to pay costs.

After failing to appear before the taxing master, the decree holder, the respondent,

was allowed to proceed ex parte. The decree holder C submitted that as the appeal

involved interpretation of various statutes a sum of 50,000/= as instruction fees is

appropriate and justified.

Held: In taxing costs, the taxing master must have regard to nature of the appeal,

amount involved and the party D who will bear the costs.

Case Information

Order accordingly. E

No case referred to.

Kessaria, for the Decree holder

Massati for the judgment debtor F

[zJDz]Judgment

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

1991 TLR p120

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.

1991 TLR p121

A