final DARSHANA DEVI Tanzilii

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA SUB-REGISTRY OF MOSHI

AT MOSHI CIVIL REFERENCE NO.24151/2024 (Arising from the decision of Moshi Land and Housing Tribunal in Bill of Costs No.240 of 2023 dated 6th September 2024) DARSHANA DEVI AGGARWAL:.…….…….……..….……….……….APPLICANT

VERSUS ASSENGA AGROVET COMPANY LIMITED:….………………..1ST RESPONDENT RAUYA MORIS:…………………………………………….…….…2ND RESPONDENT

ROSE JOSEPH ASSENGA ALIAS ROSE TEMBA/MAMA ASSENGA:………………………………..3RD RESPONDENT

RULING 13th February & 24th March, 2025. A.P. KILIMI, J.: The applicant hereinabove filed a Taxation cause against all respondents mentioned above at the Moshi District Land and Housing Tribunal after his earlier case filed thereat vide Misc. Land application No. 132 of 2023 was allowed with costs. His Taxation cause which was filed vide No. 240 of 2023 at the said Tribunal comprised a total of 12 folios which prayed a total of Tsh. 1,705,500/= as the costs for running his application said above. After being heard interparty he was awarded a total of Tshs. 234,000/= only. 1 Aggrieved with the said decision, the applicant has moved this court for reference by way of Chamber summons made under Order 7 (1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order GN. No. 263 of 2015, hereinafter “Remuneration Order”. The applicant’s application is also supported by the applicant duly affirmed affidavit in which she advanced four (4) grounds challenging the Ruling of the taxing officer as follows; a. The Honourable chairman tribunal/taxing officer erred in principle by unfairly assessing the transport costs claimed vide items 1,2,3,4 and 5 of the Bill of costs relating to transport costs in total disregard of the fact that the applicant being old and sick was unable to use public transport. b. That the honourable Chairman/Taxing Officer unfairly and wrongly assessed the costs claimed vide item

7(b) which were the transport costs for the applicant’s advocate to tribunal. c. That the honourable Chairman/Taxing officer unfairly taxed off whole instruction fees in the sum of Tsh. 1,000,000/= claimed under item 6 of the bill of costs without assessing the amount of work done by the applicant’s advocate, Mr. Bharat B.Chadha and after making the wrong and interpretation of provision of the law not meant by the applicant in as far as the word ‘yet to be paid” are concerned d. That the honourable Chairman/Taxing officer after conceding to the provision of order 55(3) of the Advocate’s Remuneration Order G.N No. 263/2015 that folio for costs for prosecuting Taxation Cause is normally left blank, failed to exercise discretionary powers of completing/filling in the blank left and erroneously, while disregarding the work done by the counsel for the applicant, taxed off item 9 of the applicant’s bill of costs. 2 The brief facts gleaned from applicant affidavit and the records available is that; at the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Moshi at Moshi hereinafter ‘trial tribunal’. The applicant herein filed a Land Application No. 17 of 2021 which was determined exparte in her favour with costs. The respondents herein then filed a Misc. Land Application No. 132 of 2023 at the trial tribunal to set aside an exparte judgment which was unsuccessfully dismissed with costs. The

applicant then filed a Taxation Cause No. 209 of 2022 at the trial tribunal for bill of costs for Land application No. 17 of 2021. Unsatisfied with the taxing master’s decision, the applicant successfully filed for reference in this court vide Civil Reference No. 9186 of 2024. As said above, the records further reveals that the applicant filed another Taxation Cause No. 240 of 2023 arising from a dismissal order of Misc. Land Application No. 132 of 2023 at the tribunal, after being heard he was awarded costs as indicated above. Unsatisfied with the Taxing Master decision, the applicant is in this court praying for the following orders; First, that this court be pleased to reverse part of the decision and award of the Taxing Master in Taxation 3 Cause No 240/2023, Second; this court be pleased to increase the awarded costs in Taxation Cause No. 240/2023 as applied in applicant’s bill of cost, third; Costs of this reference and any other relief that this court deems fit and just to the applicant. In their joint counter affidavit of the 1st and 3rd respondents, they vehemently denied the allegations and put the applicant to strict proof thereof and that the Taxing master did not cause any kind of injustice. The 2nd respondent did not file counter affidavit nor submissions thus the case preceded exparte against him. With the leave of the court, parties agreed to dispose this matter

by way of written submissions whereby on behalf of the applicant was one Mr. Tumaini Isaya Johakim, represented him with power of Attorney and the 1st and 3rd respondents were represented by Mr. Dennis Maro, learned advocate. Mr. Johakim in supporting this reference submitted for the first ground that the taxing master made unfair assessment in respect to the transport costs claimed in item 1,2,3,4 and 5 of the bills of costs. He said that the taxing master disregarded the applicant’s age (76) years old and 4 her serous medical health condition of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting – CABG), thus she was unable to use public transport. He said that as per item 1,2, and 4, at the trial tribunal, the applicant claimed a total of Tshs. 300,000/= as costs for transport using a private car to and from his advocate one Bharat B. Chadha between Moshi and Arusha for instructions concerning the case and collecting documents such as Written Statement of Defence and Counter affidavit. Instead, the taxing master awarded her total of Tshs. 30000/= (Tshs. 10,000/= per item). He further claimed that for the costs incurred to and from the applicant residence to the trial tribunal using her private car, the applicant claimed total of Tshs. 40000/= wherein the taxing master only allowed Tshs 4000/=. The applicant was of the view that the taxing master made unfair assessment on transport

costs incurred by the applicant contrary as to what was claimed in a bill of costs from items 1 to 5. Mr. Johakim further explained that the taxing master erred by reasoning that the applicant failed to produce evidence on her medical health conditions while the same were indicated in her submission in chief in support of her taxation Cause No. 240 of 2023 where the applicant averred that since the tribunal chairman presided over Land application No. 5 17 of 2021, he ought to know the applicant health condition and her age and exercise his discretion as per order 12(1) of the Advocate Remuneration Order. In support of her assertion, Mr. Johakim referred to the decision of this court before her ladyship Mongella J, between the parties herein but with Civil reference No. 9186 of 2024 TZHC 7451 at page 11 regarding the applicant reasons to procure a private transport. In support of ground number two, Mr. Johakim challenged the Taxing master decision to disallow the transport costs of Tshs. 20000/= used by the applicant’s advocate to travel to the tribunal by reasoning that such travel costs were included in the advocate attendance fees. He submitted that such reasoning was incorrect as per the decision of Airtel Tanzania Public Limited Company vs. Mirage Lite Limited (Taxation Reference No. 27 of 2023 TZHC 23138) which held that transport and attendance fees are separate items and

must be assessed separately and discretionary as per order 12(1) of the Advocate Remuneration Order,2015. He was of the view that the Taxing officer erred in assessing the transport costs for advocate since transport cost has to be independently evaluated based on the facts of the case and geographical distances involved. 6 Submitting on ground number three, Mr. Johakim for the applicant challenged the Taxing master decision in disallowing the whole instruction fees of Tshs 1,000,000/= as claimed under item 6 of the applicant bill of costs at the tribunal. He avers that the applicant instructed the learned advocate Mr. Bharat B. Chadha to represent her in Misc. Land Application No 132 of 2023 from which taxation cause No. 240 of 2023 originates where he prepared counter affidavit and written submissions. He said that the Taxing master misinterpreted the phrase ‘yet to be paid’ implying it as a contingent fee. He added that, fees are to be assessed based on work done and not payment, he referred to the book R. Kuloba on Judicial Hints on Civil Procedure Vol. 1 published in the year 1984 at page 117 on the principles of assessing fees. He further explained that a Taxing officer is obliged to assess the fee based on the scope and nature of work rather than focusing on whether the fees has been paid or not. He cemented his point by the decision of Tanzania Rent a Car Limited

vs. Peter Kimuhu (Civil Reference No.9 of 2020TZCA 103 (TANZLII) at page 12. Arguing on ground number four that the Taxing master misapplied Order 55(3) of the Advocate Remuneration Order, he submitted that the 7 taxing master erred in taxing off item 9 of the bill of costs on the fees for attending taxation cause hearing. Mr. Johakim was of the view that as per the referred order, fee for attending taxation are left blank in the bill of costs and are to be filled by the taxing officer, thus the taxing officer erred in taxing off item 9 in the bill of costs. He referred the decisions of Darshana Devi Aggrawal vs. Assenga Agrovet Company Limited &2 Others (Civil Reference No. 9186 of 2024) and Airtel Tanzania Public Limited Company vs. Mirage lite Limited (supra) where the Taxing officer is empowered to complete the blank items in accordance with the nature of the proceedings including the complexity of the matter and has to be guided by the scale set in 11th schedule paragraph (m) of the Remuneration Order. Mr. Johakim prayed for this court to intervene by reverse the decision of the trial tribunal Chairman in Taxation Cause No. 240 of 2023 and allow the bill of costs as prayed. Replying to the first ground, Mr. Maro leaned Advocate for the 1st and 3rd defendants argued that the assessment by the Taxing master was fair and justified as in item 1 of the costs claimed there were

no proof submitted regarding the applicant’s medical condition. He argued that what the applicant claimed in items 2,3,4 and 5 lacked merits in the eyes of law 8 for being unrealistic and had no any legal justification. Mr. Maro was of the view that since it was claimed by the applicant that she went to and from her advocate to collect and file documents prepared by her advocate one Mr. Chadha, then as per items 2,3,4,and 5 of the bill of costs filed, the said advocate had a duty to prepare and file the said documents and there was no need for the applicant to collect and personally file the said documents. Mr. Maro argued further that the referred decision which involved the parties herein, Darshana Devi Aggarwal vs. Assenga Agrovet Co. Ltd and 2 Others (Civil Reference No. 9186 of 2024 TZHC 7451) he said this case had different circumstances with the case at hand. He submitted that the Honourable judge in the said decision reasoned the health condition of the applicant basing on the proceedings of the trial tribunal. He argued that in the application at hand there were no evidence pertaining the health condition of the applicant herein. On ground number two concerning the transport fee, Mr. Maro contended that as per the Eight Schedule of the Advocate Remuneration Order of 2015, directs the advocate costs be Tshs 50,000/= per appearance in the court, thus the Taxing master

was fair in taxing off Tshs 20,000/= as per the filed bill of costs in item 7(b) as it was extravagant 9 and unnecessary. Mr. Maro said the cited decision of Airtel Tanzania PLC vs. Mirage lite Ltd(supra) where the court referred order 12(1) of the Advocate Remuneration Order 2015, the said provision used the word ‘may’ meaning that the tribunal had a discretion to grant the said costs. Mr. Maro was of the view that although those powers were to be exercises judiciously, at the hearing of the taxation cause the learned advocate for the applicant failed to prove the additional transport costs of Tshs 20000/= while he was already awarded Tshs 50000/= as appearance fee considering the fact that the offices for the applicant advocate were located here in Moshi town. Arguing the third ground on total disregard of instruction fee as per item 6 of the filed bill of costs, Mr. Maro argued that in item 6 of the filed bill of costs, it indicated that the amount was yet to be paid thus, it was a contingent fee. He argued that as per the law a contingent fee is prohibited. He referred to the provision of Regulation 81 of Advocate (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Regulation, GN. No. 118 of 2018 which provides that; “an advocate shall not enter into an arrangement with a client for contingency fee”. Mr. Maro added that there 10 was even no retainer’s agreement to support the same if in

case the applicant agreed on the instruction fees. Briefly arguing on ground number four Mr. Maro submitted that the trial tribunal decision was proper as the learned advocate at the trial tribunal failed to justify and ascertain exactly on what tribunal was to rely and depend on while awarding his costs. He prayed for the application be dismissed with costs by stating that; the aim of bill of costs was not to enrich the judgment debtor rather reimbursing the decree holder. In a brief rejoinder, Mr Johakim reiterated his submission in chief and added that since Mr. Maro conceded that the applicant resides at Arusha, then he ought to know that the documents prepared were to be brought to Moshi for filling as per the costs for transport claimed in the bill of costs, and that it was the applicant who filed those documents. Mr. Johakim further explained that the referred decision, that it has different circumstances was incorrect as for the history of the case, this application originates from Land case No. 17 of 2021 between the parties herein where the same records reveals that the applicant had a medical health condition f barring her from using a public transport. 11 Concerning the awarded amount in item 7(a) of the billed costs, Mr. Johakim argued that the counsel for 1st and 3rd respondent misdirected himself in the said provision. He argued that the Eight Schedule to

the Advocate and Remuneration Order as per item 3 provides a statutory scale for attendance which is as per 15 minutes spent in court and not transport costs of Tshs. 20,000/=. He reiterated what he submitted in chief by adding that the advocate incurred costs from his residence to the trial tribunal. Commenting on the Contingency fee, Mr. Johakim explained that this was an ethical issue dealt with in accordance to etiquette rules and since the counsel raised the said issue, he was to prove on the existence of the said allegation by providing evidence of existence of such arrangement and not by quoting phrases like ‘yet to be paid’. Having considered the records available and rival submissions from both parties, the issue for determination before me is whether this reference is meritorious. The applicant in this application challenges the costs awarded to him in Taxation cause No 132 of 2023 while the 1st and 3rd respondents are saying the decision by Taxing officer were judiciously. 12 Before I proceed with the issue above, I find it essential to point out that it is an established principle regarding costs that this court will refrain from interfering with the amount taxed by the taxing master unless amount granted were based on a wrong principle. (See the cases of VIP Engineering and Marketing Ltd vs Citibank Tanzania Limited, Civil Application No. 24 of 2019, CAT at Dsm

(unreported), Rahim Hasham vs Alibahai Kaderbhai (1938) 1 TLR(R) 676 and Premchand Raichand Versus Quarry Services [1972] EA. 162 to mention few. According to the order 12 of Remuneration Orders, it provides that a taxing officer may allow such costs, charges and expenses as authorized in this Order or appear to him to be necessary or proper for the attainment of justice; and he/she shall not allow, any costs incurred or increased through over-caution, negligence or mistake, or by payment of special charges or expenses to witnesses or other persons. I am aware of the principle that discretionary powers are to be exercised judiciously and they are only to be interfered with the superior courts if there is misinterpretation of the law or acted on the wrong principle. See the decision of the Court of Appeal in Kitinda Kimaro vs. 13 Anthony Ngoo & Another (Civil Reference No. 6 of 2016) [2018] TZCA 493 (13 July 2018) (TANZLII) whereby the Court stated: “It is a principle of law that, the decision of the Taxing Officer will be interfered with only when the Court is satisfied that the decision was arrived upon a wrong principle or a wrong consideration. Where there has been an error in principle the Court will interfere but solely on the question of quantum as regard to the matter which the Taxing Officer is particularly fitted to deal and the Court will intervene only in exceptional

cases.” Now starting with the first ground, the applicant is faulting the taxing officer decision to tax off the applicant transport costs. Unfortunately, upon perusing the records available both physical and online (eCMS), I have failed to find the trial tribunal proceedings so as to refer on the filed bill of costs. However, the ruling which is subject to this application reveals that for items 1,2,3,4, and 5, the applicant claimed a total of Tshs 420,000/= as a transport cost incurred by using private transport due to her health condition of not being able to use a public transport. 14 However, the Taxing officer awarded her Total of Tsh 30,000/= for costs incurred to and from Moshi to Arusha for items 1,2 and 4 while for the costs from her home to the trial tribunal as it was within Moshi, the Taxing officer awarded Tshs 4000 as to and from in the range of Tshs. 2000 per trip. The reasoning was that there was no evidence on her health condition requiring her to use a private transport thus the taxing master used a calculation of a public transport. Since the issue of receipt was not an issue in the application at hand, I have perused the records available and find that there are indeed no proof indicated in the applicant’s affidavit proving that the applicant had a medical health conditions thus unable to use a public transport, therefore in my view I shake hands with the

Taxing master in awarding the applicant Tshs. 5000/= as a transport fee to and from Moshi to Arusha as a bus fare for public transport. This is because no compelling reasons advanced by the applicant which necessitated the use of private transport. However, I have also considered the argument by Mr. Johakim that this application originates from the Land application No 17 of 2021, with due respect to Mr. Johakim the same is misconceived as each case has to 15 be determined basing on its own circumstances. In the ruling referred by the applicant delivered by this Court, it reasoned that because there were records for the applicant health condition, then the applicant reasonability of using a private car was evidenced. But in the application at hand no proof has been advanced to prove the same, despite the fact that the applicant had an opportunity even in this reference to prove the same through her affidavit filed in this court which in law is evidence, wherefrom this court could have taken judicial notice (See Diocles Kamuhabwa vs Theonest Kamuhabwa, Civil Appeal No. 436 of 2022 [2024] TZCA 221 (TANZLII). Therefore, this being a court of law, cannot assume by using the facts of another case or a mere submissions of the applicant which in law are not evidence. Thus, from the above endeavoured, I also agree that the awarded transport costs used by the applicant to and from Moshi

to Arusha was justifiable and reasonably taxed off by the taxing officer. Coming to the second ground on the appearance costs incurred by the applicant advocate, as per the available records, this has been claimed as per item 7(b) where the applicant claimed for Tshs. 50,000/= for 16 appearance of Advocate Mr. Chadha at the tribunal and also claimed Tshs 20,000/= for his transport. The Taxing officer did grant to the applicant Tsh. 50000/= as appearance costs at the tribunal and reasoned that Tshs 20,000 were included in the said amount for appearance on that day. Dissastified with the above, Mr. Johakim is faulting the said decision that the taxing officer erred by taxing off Tshs 20,000/= for advocate transport costs while the above were two separate items and had to be considered separately. As alluded and quoted above about the Discretionary powers of the Taxing officer in awarding costs. The question to be asked is whether the taxing officer was reasonable at his findings on above said appearance costs. I have considered the argument from both parties; I am in agreement with the learned counsel Mr. Maro that the said charges are discretionary awarded by the Taxing officer. But, since the taxing officer did give reasons that the transport fees were to be calculated within the appearance attendance, in my opinion this reasoning was a misconception as correctly argued by Mr.

Johakim. In my view, appearance fees are to be 17 calculated separately from other costs, thus in that regard I am settled that the taxing officer based on wrong principle. Therefore, since the amount awarded by the taxing officer was Tshs. 50,000/= inclusive with transport fee, then I separate the said amount for transport claimed. However, as stated above the applicant in her affidavit did not annex the records of the trial court to prove how many days the said advocate entered the appearance. It is my considered view and prudent that only the amount claimed by the applicant Tshs. 20,000/= as a transport fee from Arusha to Moshi was reasonable and justified hence taxed to that amount and added thereto. On Ground number three the applicant is faulting the Taxing Master decision of completely taxing off the instruction fee by wrongly interpreting the phrase ‘yet to be paid. The respondents’ arguments are that the said fee was of contingent fee and was yet to paid to the said advocate thus prohibited as per Regulation 81 of the Advocate (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Regulation(supra). Whereas the applicant on the other side maintained that the above was true but regulation 74 of the said Advocate regulation permits arrangements for delayed payment of fees, 18 which should not affect the award of the instruction fees and referred the case of Darshana Devi Aggarwal vs

Assenga Agrovet Company Limited and 2 Others (Civil Reference No. 9186 of 2024) [2024] TZHC 7451 (TANZLII). I am mindful, parties are not duty bound to produce the retainership or remuneration agreement or payment vouchers and/or receipts to prove payments issued to their advocates, see Mary Siril Chuwa and 7 Others vs. Uhuru Shimbwe Rural Primary Cooperative Society (Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 428 (TANZLII) and Tanzania Rent a Car Limited (supra). In Tanzania Rent a Car Limited (supra) the Court of Appeal observed as follows: “…in taxation of bill of costs there is no need of proof of instruction fees by presentation of receipts, vouchers and/or remuneration agreement because the taxing officer, among others, is expected to determine the quantum of the said fees in accordance with the cost scales statutorily provided for together with the factors enumerated above.” 19 Now the next issue is whether the decision of taxing officer to tax off the instruction fee was justifiable. Before I proceed, I am guided by the general rule that the award for instruction fees is peculiarly within the discretion of a taxing officer and the Court will always be reluctant to interfere with his decision, unless it is provided that taxing officer exercised his discretion injudiciously or has acted upon a wrong principle or applied wrong consideration. (See Tanzania Rent a Car Limited

vs Peter Kimuhu (supra), Attorney General vs Amos Shavu, Taxation reference No. 2 of 2000, East African Development Bank vs. Blue Line Enterprises, Civil Reference No 12 of 2006 (both unreported) and Premchand Raichand Ltd and Another vs. Quarry Service of East Africa Ltd and Another (No. 3) [1972] 1 E.A 162. To mention a few. In this matter at hand, I have considered the above rival arguments, it is true this court in Darshana Devi Aggarwal vs Assenga Agrovet Company Limited and 2 Others (supra) the case which was having the same parties as in this matter, ruled by taking recognizance of regulation 74 of Advocate regulation (supra) and awarded the applicant costs, and in awarding it, the taxing officer reasoned that, since several advocates appeared for the applicant at the tribunal and said they hold brief of his 20 advocate, this court in that case was of the view that the same suffice to prove that the applicant at some point engaged a services of an advocate and consequently taxed instruction fees to the tune of TZS. 500,000/-. I also subscribe to the said observation. In the premises, I am settled that the taxing officer by disallowing costs claimed due to contingency said above, it reasoned on wrong principle when disallowed the said claimed costs in this item. Now back home to see whether the amount claimed in this item as instruction fee was justifiable. According to

the record, facts of this matter are distinguishable to the facts of the case of Darshana Devi Aggarwal vs Assenga Agrovet Company Limited and 2 Others (supra), this is because in the above case the court was able to access through evidence from the tribunal record, for instance the court knew that several advocates appeared but Mr. Chahda whom instruction fee was prayed for did not appear. It is apparently in this matter, the applicant moved this case by way of chamber summons supported by affidavit, the said proceeding was not attached as annexture to applicant’s affidavit, the applicant managed to attach only two ruling he won as A1 and A2, but no necessary 21 proceedings annexed to form part of her evidence. I am saying so because it is a trite law affidavit are evidence and the annexture thereto are intended to substantiate the allegations made in the affidavit. (see cases of Bruno Wenceslaus Nyalifa vs Permanent Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs & Another (Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2017) [2018] TZCA 297 (TANZLII) and John Ackley Matoi vs Khalid Bakari Kileo (Civil Reference No.6 of 2020) [2023] TZCA 17576 (TANZLII). Therefore, this court cannot rely on mere submissions by the applicant representative to accept that what he alleges really existed. This is because submissions are not evidence. I wish to maintain the above by referring the decision of the court in The

Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Dar es Salaam vs The Chairman, Bunju Village Government & 11 Others, Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2006 CAT at Dsm (unreported) when the court maintained that; " Submissions are not evidence. Submissions are generally meant to reflect the general features of a party's case. They are elaborations or explanations on evidence already tendered. They are expected to contain 22 arguments on the applicable law. They are not intended to be a substitute for evidence.” For the foregoing, since who alleges must prove, I am of considered view I cannot grasp on whether the said Mr. Bharat Chahda drafted applicant’s documents or appeared as his advocate. In view thereof I am settled this item was not proved, consequently I proceed to tax it off. As to the 4th ground, Mr. Johakim challenged the decision of the taxing officer taxing off costs of the Taxation Cause in item 9. After referring to Order 55(3) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2015; the taxing officer admitted that indeed this section of the Bill of Costs is left blank at the filing of the Bill of Costs. However he proceeded to tax off the said costs alleging that the applicant ought to have expounded on the costs she incurred in prosecuting the Bill. The provision of Order 55(3) of the Advocates Remuneration Order (supra) has left the taxing officer with the discretion to determine the amount

of costs to award on the taxation cause. The provision states: “(3) Fees for attending taxation shall not be included in the body of the bill, but the item 23 shall appear at the end, and the amount left blank for completion by the taxing officer” The taxing officer in her decision at page 5 stated that since the said item for taxation bill is usually left blank, the applicant has a duty to prove the costs incurred during the hearing of the taxation cause. By such reasoning of a taxing officer, I find that he erred in his reasoning hence succumbed in wrong principle in respect to this application for Bill of costs, thus this order of disallowing this claim is hereby overruled forthwith. Now to discuss which fee is allowed under this bill, the law requires the Taxing officer to consider the circumstance of the taxation cause before him, its complexity and award a justified amount. See the decision of Babito Ltd. vs. Freight Africa NV-Belgium and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 402 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 461 (13 June 2024) TANZLII. The taxing officer is to be guided also with the scales set in the Eleventh Schedule under paragraph (m), However the same remain the discretionary of Taxing officer as provided by Eleventh schedule item (m) (aa) of the regulation to the effect that; 24 “The Taxing Officer, in the exercise of his discretion, shall take into consideration the other fees and

allowances to the advocate (if any) in respect of the work to which any such allowance applies, the nature and importance of the cause or matter, the amount involved, the interest of the parties, the general conduct of the proceedings, and all other relevant circumstances” Therefore, I have considered the nature of the matters gave rise to this present bill, the time which it lasted in court, legal issues involved and the fact that all documents in this bill were drawn by the applicant herself. I tax this item at the tune of Tshs. 400,000/= which I believe is reasonable to meet the justice of this matter. Consequently, I thus substitute Tshs. 234,000/= awarded by the taxing officer with Tshs. 654,000/= approved by this court as depicted above. It is so ordered. DATED at MOSHI this 24th day of March, 2025. 25

X

JUDGE Signed by: A. P. KILIMI Court; Ruling delivered this 24th day of March, 2025 in the presence of Mr. Tumaini Isaya Johakimu with power of Attorney issued by the Applicant, while respondent and his advocate absent. Sgd; A. P. KILIMI

JUDGE 24/03/2025 26