godfrey joshua isobu another vs elizabeth mwajuma mwaka 2024 tzhc 118 24 january 2024

THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (JUDICIARY) THE HIGH COURT (MUSOMA SUB REGISTRY AT MUSOMA) REFERENCE No. 6 OF 2023 (Arising from the Taxation Cause No. 6 of2023 & Land Appeal No. 10 of2022 of the High Court [Musoma Sub Registry at MusomaJ) 1. GODFREY JOSHUA ISOBU^X 2. AUGUSTINO JAMES J ......................................... APPLICANTS Versus ELIZABETH MWAJUMA MWAKA...................................... DEFENDANT RULING 23.01.2024 & 24.01.2024 Mtulya, J.: Item 1 (k) in the 11th Schedule to the Advocates Remunerations Order, GN No. 263/ 264 of 2015 (the Advocates Order), provides for Tanzanian Shillings One Million as an instruction or legal representation fee in proceedings conducted in this court, subordinate courts and tribunals. On 27th June 2023, the Taxing Officer in Taxation Cause No. 6 of 2023 (the Cause) before this court, had stated that the legal representation fee of Tanzanian Shillings One Million is reasonable and registered in the Cause according to the scale provided by the law. The Taxing Master finally resolved that the applicant be awarded costs according to the indicated enactment. Yesterday afternoon the applicants have appeared in the present Reference praying for this court to examine the decision of i the Taxing Master in the Cause on its reasonableness and fairness. According to the applicants, the award of the instruction fee at the indicated amount is unreasonable and unfair as the enactment had declined to consider the circumstances of the natives in Musoma Town. In the opinion of the applicants, the life and costs of living in Musoma Municipality is very low hence advocates may be paid low legal representation fee. Replying the submission of the applicants, Mr. Ostack Mligo, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the Taxing Master had decided in accordance to the law and that the law cannot be faulted by natives of Musoma Municipality or Taxing Master. In his opinion, the total amount of Tanzania Shillings 1,820,000/= of a bill of cost taxed by the Taxing Master is reasonable and fair as it had reduced the amount of other costs, namely: first, consultation fee from 50, 000/=Tshs to 20,000/=Tshs; and second, costs for transportation and stationaries from 500,000=Tshs to 200,000/=Tshs. I have consulted the indicated law in item l(k) of the 11th Schedule to the Advocates Order, decision of the Taxing Master in the Cause and guiding principles on the subject delivered in the precedent of Premchand Raichand Ltd & Another v. Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd & Others [1972] 1 EA 162. I have learned that the guiding principle is that costs must be fair and 2 reasonable to bring justice to the parties. In brief, this court may interfere bill of cost which is low or high to cause injustice to the parties. The question before this court is therefore: whether the awarded bill of cost in the Cause by the Taxing Master is high as complained by the applicants. I have perused the bill of cost registered by the respondent in the Cause and decision of the Taxing Master. The facts of the Cause show that the respondent had registered a total bill of cost amounting to Tanzanian Shilling 1,610,000/comprising of consultation fee (50,000/=Tshs), legal representation fee (l,000,000/=Tshs), and transport & stationaries (500,000/=Tshs). The Taxing Master then thought that the costs in consultation fee, transport and stationaries were unfairly stated in the bill and held at page 4 and 5 of the Ruling that: the consultation fee is high and that 20,000/Tshs is reasonable. Transportation and stationaries cost is on high side. 20,000/=Tshs is reasonable. The Taxing Master also sought that the representation fee of Tanzanian Shillings 1,000,000/= is reasonable and in accordance to the law, whereas for the bill of cost for the Cause was taxed at 500,000/= Tshs. Finally, the Taxing Master resolved at page 5 of the decision, that: considering circumstances of the case and 3 indicated principles governing taxation, the whole bill of costs is taxed at Tshs. 1,820,000/= Tshs. On my part, I think, and considering the nature of the case, I am moved to uphold’’the decision of the Taxing Master and hold that the indicated and awarded bill of cost in the Cause by the Taxing Master amounting to 1,820, 000/= Tshs is not high as complained by the applicants. In any case, the center of contest on the awarded legal representation fee of l,000,000/=Tshs is specifically stated by the Advocates Order. Having said so, I dismiss the application without costs. The reasons are obvious that the applicants were complaining on a bill of cost and lay persons without any legal representation in this application and the Cause. Order'ei0ccQrdingly. n/Z /) /W F-H- Mtuly£J ' \\ \ / Judge W* V — - j ‘r 24.01.2024 This Ruling was delivered in Chambers under the Seal of this court in the presence of the applicants, Mr. Godfrey Joshua Isobu and Mr. Augustino James and in the presence of the respondent, Ms. Elizabeth Mwajuma Mwaka. F.H. Mtuly^ Judge 24.01.2024 4