UGANDA COMMODITIES final

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA BUKOBA SUB-REGISTRY AT BUKOBA REFERENCE NO. 22002 OF 2024 (Arising from Taxation Cause No.000001000 of 2024, Karagwe District Court) IDEAL COMMODITIES UGANDA LIMITED…...................................APPLICANT VERSUS LINK POWER TANZANIA COMPANY LIMITED…………………………RESPONDENT RULING 24/01/2025 & 24/01/2025 E. L. NGIGWANA, J. Through the legal service of Mr. Jamal Chamani, learned advocate from Champion Law Chambers, the applicant filed this application after being dissatisfied with the ruling of the Taxing Master delivered on the 19th day of July 2024 in Taxation Cause No. 000001000 of 2024 of the District Court of Karagwe at Karagwe, praying for the following orders; - 1. That, this Honorable Court be pleased to examine the ruling of the Taxing Master in Taxation Cause No. 000001000 of 2024 of Karagwe District Court delivered by F. Haule and satisfy itself on the correctness, legality, or its propriety of the said ruling. 1 2. That, this Honorable Court, after examining the said ruling, be pleased to revise and quash the same and set aside the awarded costs. 3. That, this Honorable Court be pleased to grant any other order it may deem fair and just to grant. 4. Costs of this application be granted. The application was made under Rule 7 (1) and (2) of the Advocates Remunerations Order, 2015 G.N No.263 of 2015 (The Order). It was supported by an affidavit affirmed by the applicant’s advocate Mr. Jamal Chamani. The factual background of this application is to the effect that the Applicant, IDEAL COMMODITIES UGANDA LIMITED through Civil Case No. 4 of 2023 sued the Respondent, LINK POWER TANZANIA COMPANY LIMITED before Karagwe District Court for breach of contract, claiming payment of USD 40,000, USD 15 being general damages, interest, costs, and any other relief the trial court would deem fit and fair to grant. Upon being served with the plaint, the Defendant now Applicant filed a Written Statement of Defence (W.S.D) together with a notice of preliminary objections of point of law as follows; firstly, that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Secondly, that the suit was incompetent 2 for want of cause of action, and thirdly; that the applicant had no locus standi. Upon hearing the objections, the trial court ended up striking out the suit with costs for being incompetent. Since the suit was struck out with costs, the Respondent filed Taxation Cause No. 000001000 of 2024 claiming for costs in Civil Case No. 4 of 2023. Upon hearing the said Taxation Cause, the ruling was delivered in favor of the Respondent by taxing and granting TZS.6,482,000/=. The applicant was aggrieved by the ruling of the Taxing Master hence this application. At the hearing of this application, the applicant was represented by Mr. Sakibu Ahamada, learned counsel who was holding a brief of Mr. Jamal Chamani, learned counsel with instructions to proceed. On the other hand, the Respondent was represented by Mr. Jackson Muchunguzi Mustapha, learned counsel. However, before hearing the application, suo motu, I invited the parties to address me on whether this application was filed within time. Immediately after taking the floor, Mr. Mustapha submitted that according to Rule 7 (2) of the Advocates Remunerations Order, 2015 G.N No.263 of 2015, any person aggrieved by the decision of the Taxing Officer must file a 3 reference within twenty-one (21) days from the date of the decision. He added that in the matter at hand, the Ruling of the Taxing Officer was delivered on the 19th day of July 2024 but the present application was lodged on the 3rd day of September 2024 without first seeking and obtaining an extension of time. He went on to submit that reading the date on which the ruling was delivered and the date on which this application was filed, it goes without saying that this application for reference was filed out of time. He ended his submission by urging the Court to dismiss this application with costs. On his side, Mr. Ahamada conceded that this application was filed out of time and without first seeking and obtaining an extension of time. He ended his brief submission by urging the court to strike out this application without costs. Having gone through the applicant’s pleadings and having heard brief submissions of both advocates, the issue for determination is whether or not this application was filed within the prescribed time. In terms of Rule 7(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, any person aggrieved by the decision of the Taxing Officer must file his application within twenty-one (21) days from the date of the impugned ruling of the bill of costs. Rule 7(2) (supra) provides that: 4 “7.- (1) Any party aggrieved by a decision of the Taxing officer, may file reference to a judge of the High Court. (2) A reference under order (1), shall be instituted by way of chamber summons supported by an affidavit and be filed within 21 days of from the date of the decision. “(Emphasis supplied). Principally, in determining whether the instant application was filed within the prescribed time or not, the pleadings speak louder. The pleadings show that the decision of the Taxing Officer was delivered on the 19th day of July 2024 but the application at hand was filed on the 3rd day of September 2024, and the applicant did so without first seeking and obtaining an extension of time. Counting from 19/07/2024, when the impugned decision was delivered, to 3/09/2024, when the application was electronically filed in this Court, marks 46 days, which is beyond the 21 days prescribed by law. It is worth noting that the learned advocate drew and filed this application without first asking themselves basic questions, including whether the applicant was still within time. With due respect to the learned counsel, this is not the kind of practice we should cherish in the administration of justice. According to Mr. Mustapha, the remedy of a proceeding of this nature instituted out of time and without the leave of the Court is dismissal. On the 5 other hand, Mr. Ahamada prayed to the court to strike out the matter. However, it is worth noting that the Law of Limitation plays many roles including the following: One, to set a time limit within which to institute proceedings in a Court of Law. Two, to prescribe the consequences where proceedings are instituted out of time without leave of the court. See Hezron M. Nyachiya vs. Tanzania Union of Industrial & Commercial Workers, Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2001. CAT at Dar es Salaam (unreported). I am aware that the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2015 provides for a time limit within which to institute an application for reference in a Court of Law, but the Order does not provide for consequences of filing a matter out of time. However under Rule 8 of the order, the high court may extend the time for filing a reference upon sufficient cause. In the case of Barclays Bank Tanzania Limited vs Phylisian. Hussein Mcheni, (Civil Application 176 of 2015) [2015] TZCA 255 (30, December 2015) Tanzlii, it was the finding of the Court that where the law does not provide for the consequences of filing a matter out of time, the court should resort to section 3(1) of the law of Limitation Act, [Cap 89 R.E 209] to dismiss the matter. Section 3 of the said Act provides that: "3(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every proceeding described in the first column of the Schedule to this Act and which is instituted after the 6 period of limitation prescribed therefore opposite thereto in the second column, shall be dismissed whether or not limitation has been set up as a defence". In the event and for the foregoing reasons, since the application was filed out of time, and without first seeking and obtaining an extension of time, I hereby dismiss it. I make no order as to costs because the court suo motu raised the issue of time limitation. It is so ordered. Dated at Bukoba this 24th day of January 2025. E. L. Ngigwana Judge 24/01/2025 Delivered this 24th day of January 2025 in the presence of Mr. Sakibu Ahamada holding a brief of Mr. Jamal Chamani, learned counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Jackson Muchunguzi Mustapha, learned counsel for the Respondent, Mr. James Bagoka-Respondent’s Principal Officer, Hon. A. A. Madulu -JLA and Ms. Florentina, B/C. 7 E. L. Ngigwana Judge 24/01/2025 8