MISC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA MUSOMA SUB-REGISTRY AT MUSOMA MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO. 000011326 of 2024 REFERENCE NO. 202405171000011326 (Arising from Taxation Cause No. 01 of2023 in the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Serengeti at Mugumu, Originated from Land Application No. 156 of 2020 at District Land and Housing Tribunal for Serengeti at Mugumu) ELIZABETH MATINDE................................. . APPLICANT VERSUS CHACHA MWITA MWITA @ PAULO WANCHOKE.................... 1st RESPONDENT KOHE DANIEL......................................... 2nd RESPONDENT WANGWE DANIEL................................. 3rd RESPONDENT RULING 02nd & ig* September, 2024 M. L. KO MBA. J.: This is a reference to this Court from a ruling of a Taxing Officer in a Taxation Cause No. 01 of 2023 which was delivered on 23/4/2024. The application is preferred under Order 7 (1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, GN. No. 264 of 2015 (the Order) by way of chamber summons accompanied by the affidavit of Elizabeth Matinde who is the Page 1 of 5 applicant. The respondents did not file counter affidavit to challenge the same. Applicant is challenging the award by the Taxing Officer to the tune of TZS.4,100,000/= to above named respondents as costs of Land Application No. 156 of 2020 in which she was a judgment debtor. The matter was heard by written submission. Respondents did not file counter affidavit so they denied themselves right to object the application unless on point of law and they did not file any. Applicant complied on the filing schedule in which her written submission was drawn by Mr. Ostak Mligo. In her submission, applicant faulted the taxing master by awarding costs to the amount of TZS. 4,100,000/ while some other claims had hand written receipts and the matter was withdrawn at the preliminaries and was not determined on merit. He went on submitting that parties were relatives (mother and children) so it was not right to charge high while some other items were not proved, she said there was no evidence and legal justification. Citing Premchard Raichand Ltd vs Quarry Service of East Africa LTD and Another No. 03 of 1972 1E.A 162 she submitted Page 2 of 5 that costs shall not be allowed to rise to such level as to confine access to the court to only the wealthy. Applicant cited section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 that taxing master had to consider the matter was called for the first time and was withdrawn. She prayed the decision of the taxing master be set aside. I am called upon to find correctness on the decision of the taxing Master in Taxation Cause No. 01 of 2023 as cited above. Counsel for the applicant in making his points relied on existing relationship between the parties that are mother and children so she should not be ordered to pay costs to her children. Further applicant complained the matter was withdrawn in the first day and therefore she don't find the need of costs to respondents. I had time to read the file, it is true that the matter was withdrawn by counsel for applicant on 17/10/2022. As per court record, the matter was filed on 03/11/2020 and on 06/01/2021 respondent started to enter appearance by an advocate till when was withdrawn. It is correct that the matter was withdrawn but that happened after a long appearance to the tribunal. Page 3 of 5 Applicant relied on existing relationship between them, I find I should not venture on that as it needs further evidence, further applicant complained that taxing master award the amount without evidence and justification. In the matter at hand and from the record, items in the schedule of the bill as filed includes consultation fee, court attendance fees, instruction fee and accommodation. Tanzania Rent a Car Ltd vs Peter Kimuhu, Civil Reference No 9 of 2020 the Court said that; '.....that 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.' In the matter at hand, respondents herein had advocate when the matter was before the Taxing master, advocate was paid consultation, transport and accommodation for attending case at Mugumu. I find the costs scale was reasonable serve for the minimal amount for instruction fee for opposed application is TZS 1,000,000/ as per item (m) of the schedule to the Order. This matter had two parties and each had a counsel and they made submission. That means application was opposed. Page 4 of 5 So far as counsel for respondent had no receipt to justify cost on instruction fee charged to his client, the minimal tolerable as per advocates Order is Tsh. 1,000,000/. This is the amount provided at the statutory scale. I find other listed items were at reasonable scale and some even at below standard set by law and need no receipt to prove. See Hotel Travertine Limited & Others vs National Bank of Commerce Limited Taxation Civil Reference No. 9 of 2006 and Premchard Raichand Ltd (supra). That being said, I find the reference is partly succeed. I confirm the sum of TZS. 3,100,000/= which is hereby taxed as a total taxed amount in Taxation Cause No. 01 of 2023. It is so ordered. DATED at MUSOMA this 18th day of September, 2024. M. L. KOMBA Judge Page 5 of 5