M. C. Pardhan v. Ali Mohamed Osman Civ. Ref. 1-D-68, 22/12/68, Hamlyn, J.

M. C. Pardhan v. Ali Mohamed Osman Civ. Ref. 1-D-68, 22/12/68, Hamlyn, J.

A successful respondent had submitted a claim for an Instruction fee of Shs. 7,500/- of which has been allowed by the Deputy Registrar as taxing officer. The appellant/applicant maintained that such sum was excessive and that the taxing officer should not have allowed more than Shs. 200/- per diem. The applicant also claimed that since more than one-sixth of total bill of costs had been disallowed, respondent should not be entitled to the costs of taxation.

            Held: (1) The Court noted that judges “will not interfere with the quantum allowed as an instruction fee upon taxation unless it is manifestly so high or so low that it calls for interference by reason of some misdirection having occurred or some wrong principle having been adopted.” The Court stated that an instruction fee includes both solicitor’s and barrister’s work and includes both attendances for taking instruction as well as all other work necessary for preparing the case for trial. In the present case, the taxing officer did not set forth any reasons for the reduction, and did not use any “mathematical manipulation.” The Court held that there was no “magic formula” and that “every case must be adjudged on its own merits and on its particular circumstances.” The use of mathematical per diem figure is of assistance, stated the court, but other matters should be considered by the taxing officer, including the prolixity of the preparation of a case and any peculiar complications in its presentation to court. The subject matter involved may also have a bearing in some, but not all, cases. Since the taxing officer did not set out in his ruling any statement of a wrong principle, the Court declined to interfere with the discretion of the taxing officer. (2) The Court also held that, under Rule 41 of Part 111 of the Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules, the taxing officer had discretion, in applying the “one-sixth rule” to ignore the instruction fee he must so indicate. But the court held that the Rule does not require the taxing officer to record that he has so exercised his discretion and the reasons for doing so, and if there is nothing to show that the discretion was improperly exercised or the Rule  not followed, the taxing officer was entitled to ignore the “one-sixth rule”. Application dismissed.