DR. PETER ANDREW KATANGA v CHRISTINA THOMAS KOKO & TARCISIO JAMES ULIKAYE

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LAND DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM LAND REFERENCE NO. 000032015 OF 2024 DR. PETER ANDREW KATANGA .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF VERSUS CHRISTINA THOMAS KOKO .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT TARCISIO JAMES ULIKAYE .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT RULING HEMED, J Previously, the applicant was successful in Land Appeal No. 3783 of 2024, which had been instituted by the respondents herein against the applicant and one Vicent Koko. The said appeal was struck out with costs pursuant to the ruling of this court (Hon. Msafiri, J.) delivered on 31 May 2024, on the ground st that it had been instituted prematurely. Following the said ruling, the applicant herein prepared and filed Bill of Costs No. 000015189 of 2024, claiming the following costs incurred in responding to the said appeal: Page. 1 1. Instruction fee of TZS 8,000,000/=; 2. Appearance costs of TZS 150,000/=; 3. Instruction fee of representing the applicant in the Bill of Costs TZS 1,000,000/=; and 4. Fees for filling Bill of costs TZS 40,000/=. Grand total being TZS 9,190,000/=. The said bill of costs was assigned to Hon. M.F. Lukindo, the Taxing Officer, who determined it and delivered a ruling on 29 November 2024 as th follows: instruction fee to defend the appeal was taxed at TZS 1,000,000/=; attendance costs at TZS 150,000/=; and disbursements at TZS 40,000/=; totaling TZS 1,190,000/=. The applicant was aggrieved by the amount taxed thus filed this reference to challenge it on the following grounds: “1. That the Honourable Judge of this Court may be pleased to make an order increasing the amount of costs in favour of the Applicant from the sum of Tanzania Shillings (TZS) One Million and One Hundred Ninety Thousand (1,190,000) awarded by the Honourable Deputy Registrar in Taxation Cause No. 000015189 of 2024 delivered on 29th November, 2024 to TZS 9,190,000 which is the statutory minimum. 2. That the costs of this application be provided. 3. Any other relief may the Honorable court deem fit to grant.” Page. 2 I directed the parties to argue the application by way of written submissions. The applicant enjoyed the legal services of Mr. Pascal Mshanga, learned counsel, while the respondents were represented by Mr. Thomas Eustace Rwebangira, learned advocate. I have read the rival submissions and found that the applicant is seeking an order to increase the amount of TZS 1,190,000/= awarded by the Taxing Officer to TZS 9,190,000/=, which according to him is the statutory minimum. Upon scrutiny of the affidavit and submissions in support of application, I noted that the applicant is challenging the amount taxed for instruction fees and that of the bill of costs. He asserted that the Taxing Officer ought to have applied the 9 Schedule of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2015, which th sets out the fees for contentious proceedings in both original and appellate jurisdictions, based on the value in question. I have gone through the Ninth Schedule and found that it concerns the scale of fees for contentious proceedings involving a liquidated sum in both original and appellate jurisdiction. It is thus not relevant to the matter at hand. My firm view is that the ninth Schedule was not applicable in the Bill of Costs before the Taxing Officer because the same arose from a land dispute and not a liquidated sum. I have read the Advocates Remuneration Orders and found that the relevant provision is the Eleventh (11 ) Schedule to the th Advocates Remuneration Orders (supra), specifically item 1(I), which relates Page. 3 to costs of proceedings in the High Court, subordinate courts, and Tribunals. The said item provides for instruction fees for representing or opposing an appeal in the High Court, subordinate courts, or Tribunals to be taxed at any reasonable amount, but not exceeding 1,000,000/=. I have noted that the Taxing Officer taxed the instruction fees at the sum of TZS 1,000,000/=, which is within the threshold provided under item 1(I) of the Eleven Schedule to the Advocates Remuneration Orders. In view of the foregoing, I find that the Taxing Officer exercised her power within the ambit of the law. Additionally, the applicant faulted the decision of the Taxing Officer for failure to consider the costs of the Bill of Costs itself. The applicant claimed TZS 1,000,000/=under that item, but the Taxing Officer disallowed it. The question is whether it was proper for the said costs not to be allowed. In the course of perusing the Advocates Remuneration Order, GN.No.263 of 2015, I found Order 48, which provides as follows: “When more than one-sixth of the total amount of a bill of costs exclusive of court fees is disallowed, the party presenting the bill for taxation shall not be entitled to the costs of such taxation…” [Emphasis added] Before the taxing officer, the applicant had claimed the sum of TZS 9,190,000/=. However, the amount taxed and allowed was TZS 1,190,000/=. Page. 4 By deduction, the amount disallowed was TZS 8,000,000/=, which exceeds one-sixth of the total amount claimed in the of a bill of costs. In the circumstances, the Taxing Officer was justified in disregarding the amount claimed as costs of the Bill of Costs. From the foregoing, the court finds the application before it to be without merit. It is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs. Order accordingly. Dated at DAR ES SALAAM this 8th of September 2026 . L. HEMED JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Page. 5