FATUMA ALLY MWINYIMBEGU v ANNA JOHN & MSOLOPA INVESTMENT COMPANY

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LAND DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM APPLICATION NO. 000008426 OF 2026 FATUMA ALLY MWINYIMBEGU .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1. ANNA JOHN 2. MSOLOPA INVESTMENT COMPANY .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT RULING LUVANDA, J The Applicant above mentioned filed this application under the enabling provisions of Order 7(1) of The Advocates Remuneration Order, GN of 2015, for the following orders/reliefs, that: 1. This Court be pleased to reverse the decision entered by the Tribunal. 2. That, the costs of this application be granted. 3. That, any other relief that this Court may deem fit be granted. Page. 1 The ground for reference is pleaded in the affidavit in support of the application, that: the Respondent filed a bill of TZS 624,000 the learned Chairperson taxed TZS 824,000; the decision of the trial Tribunal in Misc. Application No. 279 of 2025 Bill of costs was made out of the proceedings of the Application No. 90 of 2025 and the Applicant’s submission was not taken into consideration by the trial Tribunal while composing and delivering its decisions; No proof was made by the Respondent for the bill incurred; The award was also made on outrageous matters. In a counter affidavit, the Respondent acceded filing a bill of TZS 624,000, but refuted other grounds. The application was heard by way of written submission. Mr. Boniphace Sariro learned Counsel for the Applicant filed submission in chief on 4/08/2026, however on reflection, the same were totally irrelevant to this reference. It was in respect of a Bill of Costs No. 76 of 2026 which is before Mwanza District Land and Housing Tribunal, between Johari Katwikiro Mkumba vs NMB and Another. Therefore, will not be reproduced for purpose of determination of this reference. The Respondent filed a reply on 24/08/2026, vide Legal and Human Rights Centre. She submitted that, the Tribunal carefully examined the items presented, including costs for attendance, filing, and preparation of documents, and found them to be reasonable, necessary, and directly connected to the Page. 2 conduct of the case. She submitted that, it is trite law that costs are awarded to compensate the successful party for expenses incurred in prosecuting or defending proceedings. That the Tribunal, being the competent taxing authority, exercised its discretion judiciously in awarding TSHS 824,000/=, which reflected both the scale under the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2015, and the circumstances of the matter. She faulted the Applicant’s argument that the cost granted was out of proceedings, on explanation that the Applicant didn’t show the proceedings that the Tribunal was to comply for in hearing Application No. 90 of 2025, while hearing of the case is not one day activity and it consist of various movements to which led to the respondent incurred costs. Regarding the argument by the Applicant that receipts or vouchers were not produced, the Respondent in turn cited in Tanzania Rent A Car Ltd vs Peter Kimuhu, Civil Reference No. 9 of 2020, for a proposition that proof of instruction fees does not require receipts. She submitted that, the Tribunal is empowered under Rule 47 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2015 to assess costs based on the nature, importance, and conduct of the matter. Argued that, the Applicant’s reliance on lack of receipts is therefore misplaced. She submitted that, the Tribunal’s ruling clearly shows that the costs awarded were for attendance before the Tribunal, transport, and preparation of Page. 3 documents. That the Applicant is attempting to minimize valid expenses is misleading and does not reflect the record. Regarding a suggestion by the Applicant that only TSHS 120,800/= should have been awarded. She submitted that, this figure is arbitrary and unsupported by law or evidence. She submitted that, the Tribunal, after considering submissions from both parties, awarded TSHS 824,000/=, which was within its discretion and consistent with the scale. That the Applicant has failed to demonstrate how the Tribunal acted illegally, irrationally, or with procedural impropriety. She submitted that, it is settled that a taxing master’s discretion will not be interfered with unless it is shown to have been exercised improperly. Arguing that in this case, the Tribunal’s ruling was reasoned, based on submissions, and supported by the Remuneration Order. That the Applicant has not established any error of principle to warrant interference by this Court. No rejoinder was filed. At the Tribunal, the Respondent presented a bill of costs comprising three items: transport and meals for twenty five sessions from 24/03/2025 to 4/08/2025 TZS 270,000; tribunals fees and stationary TZS 254,000; costs for processing a bill of costs TZS 200,000 a total of TZS 724,000. The Applicant contested this bill being on the higher side. Page. 4 Irrespective of a protest from the Applicant, the learned Chairperson without further ado, taxed a sum of TZS 824,000 being over and above a sum presented in the bill of costs. Meaning that there was an additional and un- explained sum of TZS 100,000. Frankly speaking, bill of costs is not presented for endorsement or rubber stamping, rather for review and examination by the taxing officer. Herein, the Respondent presented a bill comprising of strange items like meals, stills the learned Chairperson taxed as presented. So far, a breakdown of the so called meals and transport (TZS 270,000) were not demonstrated. I tax a less amount of TZS 150,000, a sum of TZS 120,000 is taxed off. The Respondent claimed fees and stationary costs a sum of TZS 254,000. The same is reduced to a lesser sum of TZS 150,000. Regarding costs for processing a bill of costs a sum of TZS 200,000 was too much, regard a fact that a bill of costs showeth having been prepared by the Respondent personally. Therefore, a sum of TZS 80,000 will suffice to cater for those costs. To wrap up, a sum of TZS 824,000 taxed by the taxing officer is varied and substituted with a less amount of TZS 380,000. The rest amount TZS 344,000 along a sum of TZS 100,000 which the taxing officer had taxed as a gift, are slashed away. Page. 5 The application is granted to the extent demonstrated above. I make no order for costs. Dated at DAR ES SALAAM this 8th of September 2026 . E. B LUVANDA JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Page. 6