dorin rugalabamu vs kweyamba joseph lwempisi and another 2020 tzhc 134 27 february 2020

THE HIGH CO U R T OF TANZANIA (IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT M W A N Z A H C: CIVIL REFERENCE N O . 02 O F 2019 (Arising from the Bill of Costs No. 28 of 2019J DORIN R U G A L A B A M U ..................................................... APPLICANT VERSUS K W EYA M B A JOSEPH LWEMPISI............................... RESPONDENT NATIONAL BANK O F C O M M E N C E LT D ................. 2 ^ RESPONDENT RULING Last O rder: 25.02.2020 Jud gm ent d a te : 27.02.2020 A .Z .M G E Y E K W A , J This is a reference to this Court from a ruling of a taxing officer, Ms. Moyo, in a taxation matter which was before her. The application is made under Order 7 (1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order GN.264 of 2015. The applicant prays this court to set aside the Ruling of the Deputy Registrar dated 17th day of May, 2019 which dismissed the applicant's Bill of Costs and Order the taxation of the said bill be made. At the hearing, the applicant enjoyed the service of Mr. Nasimire, learned counsel while the respondent enjoyed the service of Mr. Kaange, learned counsel. It was the applicant's Advocate submission that the applicant's affidavit aimed to set aside the dismissal Order by the Deputy Registry sitting as a Taxing Master. Mr. Nsimire further argued that the Deputy Registrar dismissed the applicant's application on the ground that the application was time-barred. The learned counsel prays this court to order the Taxing Master to tax the Bill of Costs on merit since the applicant was awarded costs in Land Case No. 40 of 2015 which was delivered on 9th day of March, 2019, then filed an application for Bill of costs on 8th day of May, 2019. It was Mr. Nasimire's submission that the applicant filed a Bill of Costs on 9th day of May, 2019 following a preliminary objection raised by the 2nd respondent that the Bill of Costs was time-barred by one day. Mr. Nasimire submitted further that, the Taxing Master sustained the objection and dismissed the applicant's Bill of Cost. Mr. Nasimire contended that section 19(1) of the Law of Limitation Act, Cap. 89 exclude the date on which the Judgment or Order is delivered therefore the Taxing Master ought to have taken this to account, thus she would not have dismissed the application for being time-barred. He prays this Court to set aside the order and the Bill of Costs be taxed on merit. On his part, Mr. Kaange stated that the law governing limitation of Bill of Costs is the Advocate Remuneration Order GN.264 of 2015 whereas the order provides that a Bill of Costs be filed within 60 days from the date when an order awarding costs was made. He submitted further that the Judgment concerning Land Appeal was pronounced on 9th of March, 2019 and the Bill of Costs was filed on 9th of May, 2019 out of time. Mr. Kaange argued that there is a specific law that governs the limitation of filing a Bill of Costs which is the Advocate Remuneration Order GN 264 of 2015. Therefore, the Decree holder cannot rely on section 19 of the Law of Limitation Act, it is not applicable. Therefore, Mr. Kaange prayed for his Court to dismiss the application with costs. In a brief rejoinder, Mr. Nasimire reiterated his submission in chief and insisted that the period when the Judgment was delivered ought to be excluded. To fortify his argument he cited the case of Morandi Rutakyamilwa v Petro Joseph (1990) TLR 49. Having considered the arguments for and against the application, I remain with one central issue for determination, and that is none other than whether or not the present application is meritorious. First of all, it is evident that the Bill of Costs Bill was time- barred for one day. It is in the record that the Judgment in respect to Land Case No.40 of 2015 was delivered on 9th day of March, 2019 and the applicant filled the Bill of Costs on 9th day of May, 2019 and the date prescribed by law was expired on 8th day of May, 2019. The issue in dispute is whether the day of delivering judgment was supposed to be excluded. Before directing myself to the Advocates Remuneration Order GN.264 of 2015 which governs Bill of costs matter, I have labored to read section 19(1) of the Law of Limitation Act, Cap. 89 which state that:- " 19.-(1) In computing, the period o f limitation for any proceeding, the day from which such period is to be computed shaii be excluded." (2) In computing the period o f limitation prescribed for an appeal, an application for leave to appeal, or an application for review of judgment, the day on which the judgment complained o f was delivered, and the period o f time requisite for obtaining a copy o f the decree or order appealed from or sought to be reviewed, shall be excluded. Basing on the above authority, section 19 (2) of the Law of Limitation Act computing of period does not include the application for Bill of Costs therefore the same is inapplicable. In the instant application, the law governing Bill of costs is the Advocates Remuneration Order GN. 264 of 2015 in particular Order 4 which provides that: " A decree-ho/der may within sixty days from the date of an order awarding costs lodge an application for taxation by filing a bill o f costs..." Guided by the above provision of law it is vivid that the order is self-explanatory and the same applies in matters related to Bill of Costs. Therefore as long as there is a specific provision of law governing taxation matters, therefore, I find that the Taxing Masters decision was correct. Having failed to surmount that hurdle, the Court cannot exercise its discretion by setting aside the Ruling of the Deputy Registry pursuant to Order 7(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order GN. 264 of 2015. Therefore, his application is accordingly dismissed without costs. Order accordingly. this 27th day of February, 2020. Ruling delivered on 27th day of February, 2020 in the presence of the applicant and the respondent. A.Z.MGE (WA JUDGE 27.02.2020