19880617 TZHC Dar es Salaam

DJ TiIB IIIGII COURT OF Tf.lJZLiNJJ. AT Diill ES SlU.Al1M . NISCELLii.lJEOUS CIVIL CAUSE HOr. 24 OF 1907 DOMINICO :Mo K[UJYEMf';rui. • ...o • o 4 • ., o • o o o o o ti o ., f • • • o o o" o • o • o o c e • .APPLICANT versus TfJTZ.IUHA POSTS & TELECOI,Il\IUNICATIOIJ CORPQPJtTIOlJ •• o• •• o • • •• oo o o • oo oo o o • o o oa., •<> • •· • o • o a o o o o o • • oTIESPQl'J])EJ:JT - JJi~tTI .... ' J,.- There wa.s an applicntion in this case for len.ve to wi thclrmr tho application for orders of' cortioro.ri ru1Cl r.10J.1.Clo.r.ms v.nd to subs Joi tute it by a frosh suit for t~1e sru:;1e subject nn.ttc:t and. to add thereto :further clain against the responclent~ A copy of the proposed pln.int uas attached to the n.pplication., T'::.'.orc wns no objection to this application o,ncl the application was granted as preyed. T'uat, however, 1-ras no·i; Jl£1.10 end of the r.1.,.-i;tcr, for ¥ir. funtu.raki, loa.rnod counsel for t110 respondent, aslcod for costs 1)ocause ho had to prepo.re for tho ca.so o.s it then was n.nd he huc,1 to file a caunter-nf'fidn.vitt, Ifo areued t!10..t ho had prop11rod hinself to 11rgu.o n.gn.inst the applicc1tion for . oertiorn.ri and r.m.n.dauus w:.:.ioh wa.s now 1)eing wi thclrawn, ancl t'JJ such ho sI.1ould lJe -c;iven his costs for. ·foe worli: clone in the prop2.ration. Mr,. Uza.ncla, ler..rned oawisol for the applicru1t, m-guod thd this was a r..1ero eont:l.nuat10fl.Of the snne subject natter in another forr.1 ancl thl)_;t"his client had not n.bLlldoned the ola:iot Ile stated. furtlier that in en.so the respon~ent succeeded in this cln:in under another foro he ooulc'.. have. his oosfo. I!·i"ir1 Uzanda also sul:oittcd. that under Orclor 23 rule(2) ·fuore is no nention of costs, ancl th11t costs are peJa1)1e 011ly where leave is not applied f'or,. Ee suggested trot the proper ardor would he costs in tho event. I ae-ree with I1fr, Uzancln. that u..-ider 0.23 r.1(2) there is no nentio11 of oosts ai:Jd that costs are Dent~onod only under 0,23 r,.1(3) when no permission to wi thcl:ro.w is crn.ntocl. I ~~ thcrof ore, U1111ble to · see rury 1)2.S is for [,Tant in[; I costs as preyed by the rcspo:nc.lent.. The n::::.tter hn.s not yet cone to ::al).::.:.e~~ fact that tho respGndcnt hnl.l no.do prepn.ro..tions to argue the appliou.tion as it ifD..S then does not r.1oan tfmt !10 should be c;rantocl costs.,. T1ei~0 a.re nur.J.erous ins ta.noes where on tho clay for hearine a OC'..se or a.pplico.:tion there is 2..n n.ppli- oo..-tion for onerulnent uncle n..nd r.,Tn.ntod n.nd n totally UO'tl line of n.rgunont ho..s to be prepared. Ho coats o..re awc,rded in suc!:i. cnses and I cru:mot· see wby the present situation shoulc1.. be m-zy- 'different. For the above reasons I hold tlk1,t costs aro to bG in tho event. - 2 Ruling doliv0rec.l to Miss Mjasiri for respondent encl holclii"'l.{3' 1~rief for Mr. Uza.ncl,:,... JUDGE 17/6(1900.