R. v. Michael Mhuto, Inspection Note; Crim. Case 1123-D-69; 6/5/70; Georges, C. J.

R. v. Michael Mhuto, Inspection Note; Crim. Case 1123-D-69; 6/5/70; Georges, C. J.

In this matter advocate for the defence failed to appear on the hearing date which had originally been agreed between the prosecutor and himself and fixed accordingly by the Court. He sent no message explaining his absence. The prosecution witnesses all appeared and wasted a day in Court as a result. They were all Government servants working in Dar es Salaam so that no specific costs were incurred by the prosecution. The trial magistrate was, however, incensed at the apparent discourtesy to the Court on the part of advocate and the waste of witnesses’ working time. He forwarded the file to the High Court to have an administrative ruling on the “question of the unliqudated costs definitely suffered by the Republic and the witnesses.”

            Held: (1) “Costs are expenses incurred by a party to an action and in that sense they cannot be “unliquidated” as for example damages in action for tort which cannot be quantified until fixed by the Court. A party may not recoup all the costs he may have incurred because the Court may hold that they were not reasonably incurred and disallow them in taxation, but costs are always a “liquidated” amount.” (2) “If the Republic has incurred no costs then none can be awarded.” (3) “The trial magistrate, through the Registrar, can, however, report the discourtesy to the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society. There appropriate action can be taken against the advocate for his waste of judicial time unless he can produce a satisfactory excuse.