19940729 TZHC Dodoma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DODOMA '":·:\···. '"Iii., ~·· GIVIL REFERENCE NO o 4 OF 1992. (FROM·THE RULING OF MRo Fo.So MSHOTE, TAXING MASTER - IN CIVIL CASE NOo11/83) tAPITAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMPANY 3LIMITED o o o o o o ,; APPLICANT versus MASUDI MURSAL YUSUFU 0 • • • • • RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ..... . J• MWALUSANYA, Thie ie a civil reference □ade by the applicant Capital c.nstruetien' E,iuipment Co. Ltd., against the ruling of the Taxing ,, Mast_er ~s re~ards the Bill of Costs. Counsel fer the applicant Mr. Moezi has Qontended that the items No. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill • ,f ~ts were ~ed as presented though those i terns were not costs il\ the ease, I PB.l'tly agree with counsel for the applicant. Item No. 3 Shi,... 9()0/;: ~tn;ern~ exp.enses incurred in repairing the vehicle. lJem~o 1 4 ?hs,2~8,300/= concerns demurrage charges when the vehicle ... was kept ~t the Garage for repair~ Item Noo 8 being a claim for loss " ,f earnings when the vehicle (taxi) was not ~n the road. On these three items I agree that these were not costs in the case but substa- ntive claims• S, the Taxing-Master err1a,~ in including these items tn the ti~i-d. o-tf•osts he awardedD Qr-~ncerning item No. 6 (Shs.33,1'."00/;=) and item No• 7 (advocatE·s fe.~~, court fees and charges t\ produce copies of de,cuments), I r..r.2 cf the view that these w~re pro:;:.:...-.iJ' , ...;cepted as ~oats in the ease. I-:: em N~. Q'; concerns ___ the · l~p-~nse~ Lwc: .L ~-.:...i,1011dent incurred when he hired a .•· taxi fr.om Iringa t•· 'Dodoma '.' ~-" th,-· ' ·:;aring of the case .._ It was a~::;ued .$.OOOGe/2.,. . 2 by the applicant at the lower court that the respondent should have had taken a bus irv5tead of a taxi. In my view the time factor and I inconvinience are matters t~ be considered whether to hire a taxi or use the bus. I am not persuaded that the Taxing Master did.not exer- cise his discretion judiciously when he allowed that claimG Then the applicant stated that as regards item Noe 2 (Shs.61,450/=)• fer attending the court by taxi, there was no evidence to show that he actually used that mucho Indeed there were no receipts to back up the claim. _However where no receipts are produced, the Taxing-Master is allowed to award what he considers to be reasonable claimso In my considered view the claims made were reasonable and so the Taxing-Master exercised his discretion judiciouslyo In ground 'four of the reference Mro i'-ibezi complains that it was not proper for the District Registrar to hear the application for l5tay •f. execution as he had no jurisdiction to do that. Well, this being a reference on the manner the Bill of Costs was taxed, the compla- int is misconceived. This is not the right forum. He could have appealed against the ruling of the District Registrar. In the event the reference is partly allowed. The items Noo3, 4, and 8 are taxed off. The award given on items Noe 2, 6 and 7 are granted. Therefore the award is allowed only to the extent of Shso 102 1 498/=. Thu&r-the Bill of Costs which was taxed at Shs.956,698/= is now taxed at Shso102 1 498/=o As the reference has substantially sueeeded, I partly allow the reference with costso Order accordinglyo ~ Sgd. J oL, M\,.1ALU,SANYA JUDGE 29767Ji~94 COURT: - Judgment c',eli ve:i.~ed ~ n ~hcmbers at Dodoma in the pr0::;,J;.1c"' ..pplicant 1 s cou:.<1,sel Mr. Mbezi o Sg. J oLo M1JALUSANYA JUDGE. 29767/1994