felix christopher mrema vs milcah kalondu mrema 2018 tzhc 2213 24 september 2018
The application was incompetent as it was brought under a repealed law; it was accordingly struck out with costs to the respondent.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- felix christopher mrema vs milcah kalondu mrema 2018 tzhc 2213 24 september 2018
- Parties
- Applicant: Felix Christopher Mrema; Respondent: Milcah Kalondu Mrema
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 24 September 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Reference / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- application struck out with costs
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Applicability of Procedural Rules
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Felix Christopher Mrema
Applicant
Milcah Kalondu Mrema
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Reference / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application was competently before the court under the correct law
- 2 Entitlement to costs upon striking out an incompetent application
Ratio Decidendi
The application was incompetent as it was brought under a repealed law; it was accordingly struck out with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application struck out with costs
Orders
- The application is struck out with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (ARUSHA DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT ARUSHA CIVIL REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 2018 (Arising from the High Court Taxation Cause No. 115 o f 2016 ) FELIX CHRISTOPHER M REM A..................................... APPLICANT VERSUS MILCAH KALONDU M REM A......................................... RESPONDENT RULING MAIGE. J This is a reference against a decision of a bill of costs granted by the Tax Master, Honorable Rumisha, DR. It has been preferred under Rule 5(1) of the Advocates Remunerations and Taxation of Costs Rules, G.N. NO. 515 of 2015. The cited law, parties are now in agreement was dis-applied and replaced by the current Advocates Remuneration Taxation of Costs Rules G.N. NO. 264/2015 which became operational on 17/7/2015. ♦ Therefore, when the matter came for hearing of the preliminary objection the notice of which was previously filed, Mr. Shirima, learned advocate for the applicant conceded to the preliminary objection and urged the Court to strike out the application without costs. Mr. Ombeni who appeared for the respondents thought that his clients were entitled to costs since far from entering appearance, he had filed a counter affidavit and a notice of preliminary objection. I agree with him. For the reason of the application being preferred under a dead law, I find that it is incompetently before the Court. It is according struck out with costs. It is so ordered. (Sgd) MAIGE.I JUDGE 24.9.2018 Delivered in the presence of Mr. Shirima, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Ombeni, learned advocate for the respondent this 24th day of September 2018. (Sgd) MAIGE.I JUDGE 24.9.2018 I hereby certify this to be a true copy of the original Si J.F. NKWABI, DEPUTY REGISTRAR ARUSHA rtU ^ 2