JARED B. OTHORA vs JOAKIM OTHORA

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT MUSOMA TAXATION CAUSE NO. 000020650 OF 2026 JARED B. OTHORA .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF VERSUS JOAKIM OTHORA .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT RULING NDYEKOBORA, DR RULING Date of last Order: 10 September, 2026 th th Date of Ruling: 11 September,2026. M.O. NDYEKOBORA, TAXING OFFICER The applicant, Jared B. Othora, has filed this application for taxation claiming a total of Tshs 3,540,000/= against the Respondent, Joakim Othora. In this court, Mr Joakim Othora, through Misc. Land Application No. 8869 of 2026, filed his application seeking to revise the proceedings and orders of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Tarime in Land Application No. 1 of 2026. However, Misc. Land Application No. 8869 of 2026 met a legal hurdle as it was struck out for being incompetent, with costs, hence this application. Page. 1 The application has 7 items, to wit item 1 is that on 30 April, 2026 is consultation fee Tshs 200,000.00/=; item 2 on 4 May 2026 is instruction fee, Tshs 2,500,000.00/=; th item 3 is that on 6 May 2026 attending for mention for advocate and th client/respondent Tshs 200,000.00/=; item 4 is that on 7 May 2026 is attending for th hearing for advocate and client/respondent Tshs 200,000.00/=; item 5 is that on the th 18 May 2026 is attending for hearing for advocate and client/respondent Tshs 200,000.00/=, item 6 is that on 15 Jun 2026 is attending for ruling for advocate and th client/respondent Tshs 200,000.00/=; item 7 is that on 7 May 2026 is court fees for th filling counter affidavit and notice of preliminary objection Tshs 40,000.00/=. When the matter was called on for hearing, Mr Kungé Wabeya, learned counsel, appeared for the applicant, while Mr Joakim Othora, the respondent, appeared personally, unrepresented. Mr Kungé, on item 1, prayed for Tshs 200,000/= as the consultation fee, which was paid when he approached the advocate for legal advice. On item 2, on the instruction fee to represent the applicant, Mr Kung’e prays for Tshs 2,500,000/= for the consultation fee, as the same amount is reasonable, as the application was unliquidated. His stand was based on item 1(b) of the 11th Schedule and Order 40(1) and (2)(a) of the Advocate Remuneration Order. He also referred to the case of Premchand Raichand Ltd &Another vs Quarry Services of East Africa & Others (1972)1 E.A 162 and Kitinda Kimara Vs Antony Ngoo and other, Civil Application No. 576/02 of 2018 CAT. Submitting on items 3-6, Mr Kung’e prayed for Tshs 200,000/= per item to be taxed as attendance costs; the amount is reasonable. In the second part, Mr Kung’e prayed for the filing fee for the counter affidavit and preliminary objection; thus, Tshs. 40,000/=. Mr Kung’e finally prayed for the total cost of Tshs. 3,540,000/=. He stated that the amount so prayed for is reasonable, so the same is granted as prayed. Replying, Mr Joakim did have an objection to the filing fee of Tshs 40,000/=. Page. 2 On the other hand, Mr Joakim submitted that the amount so prayed for is excessive. On the consultation, the amount so prayed for is excessive; he prayed for the consultation fee of Tshs. 25,000/= be granted instead of Tshs. 200,000/=. For the attendance fee on 06/05/2026, be taxed at Tshs. 20,000/= as the journey from Shirati to Musoma is Tshs. 20,000/=. On 07/05/2026 and 18/05/2026, the applicant did not appear; thus, he prayed the same not be granted, as they appeared virtually. On 15/06/2026, Mr Joakim prayed for Tshs. 25,000/= be taxed instead of Tshs. 200,000/=. On the instruction, Mr Joakim prayed for Tshs 1,000,000/= to be paid instead of 2,500,000/=, which is so excessive, and he no longer has the business. He prayed for the total cost of 1,105,000/= to be taxed, and the remaining amount to be taxed off. In his rejoinder, Mr Kungé submitted on the consultation fee that the client legally paid the cost to the advocate, and thus the same be taxed as prayed. As for the instruction fee, Mr Kungé prays the same be taxed as presented. In attending court, the law is not considering the journey alone, but rather the time spent. As per attendance, the court record is very clear. He prayed to the court to refer to and consider as prayed. I have dispassionately considered the court records, the parties’ pleadings, and rival submissions on the application. I find it proper to start with the claim of instruction fees. The same is usually at the discretion of the Taxing Officer. It is judicial discretion, whereby there are guidelines on what should be considered before the same are awarded. In the case of Premchand Raichand Ltd &Another vs Quarry Services of East Africa & Others (1972)1 E. A 162, the erstwhile Court of Appeal for East Africa laid down four guiding principles which are to be considered when determining the quantum of instruction fee to be awarded. These are; First, the costs shall not be allowed to rise to such a level as to confine access to the court to only the wealthy; Secondly, that the successful litigant ought to fairly level of reimbursed remuneration of advocates must be such as to attract recruits an honourable profession; and Fourthly, that, there must, so far as practicable be consistency in the for costs he reasonably incurred; Thirdly, the general Page. 3 awards made, both to do justice between one person and another and so that the person contemplating litigation can be advised by his advocate very approximately, for the kind of case contemplated, is likely to his potential liability for costs. Item 2 is about the instruction fee to prosecute Misc. Land Application No. 8869 of 2026 Tshs 2,500,000/=. Mr Kung’e prays for Tshs 2,500,000/= for the consultation fee, as the same amount is reasonable, as the application was unliquidated. His stand was stated under item 1(b) of the 11th Schedule and Order 40(1) and (2)(a) of the Advocate Remuneration Order. He also made reference to the case of Premchand Raichand Ltd &Another vs Quarry Services of East Africa & Others (1972)1 E.A 162 and Kitinda Kimara Vs Antony Ngoo and Others, Civil Application No. 576/02 of 2018 CAT. On the other hand, Mr Joakim prayed for Tshs 1,000,000/= to be paid instead of 2,500,000/=, which is excessive, and he no longer has the business. It is an agreed principle that instruction fees must be commensurate with the work for which they are to be charged. Tedious work will definitely attract more. In the case of Kapinga and Co. Advocates vs. National Bank of Commerce, Civil Appeal No.8 of 2011, CAT, DSM (unreported) laid emphasis on the need for instruction fees to be commensurate with the effort, time and the work done in the course of hearing and disposing of the case. (See also the case of Premchand Raichand Ltd &Another vs Quarry Services of East Africa & supra). There is no doubt that this application emanates from Misc. Land Application No. 8869 of 2026. It is also on record that the same was struck out with costs following the sustainment of the preliminary objection by the applicant. Therefore, the parties did not labour any more time on the matter. However, I choose to differ with the applicant’s counsel on the provision to be used under the circumstances. As this application emanates from the application, Misc. Land Application No. 8869 of 2026, to me, the guidance is to be found under item 1 (m) (ii) of the 11 Schedule of the th Advocate Remuneration Order, GN No. 263 of 2015, which provides for the fee chargeable for applications, notices of motion or chamber applications (including appeals from taxation) as Tshs 1,000,000/= for an opposed application. Turning to Page. 4 the application at hand, there is no doubt that this bill of costs arose from Misc. Land Application No. 8869 of 2026. The court records show that the respondent filed a counter affidavit and the preliminary objection; thus, the application was opposed. Based on what has been endeavoured, I proceed to grant Tshs 1,000,000/= as an instruction fee for item 2. Item 1 is for consultation fees. Mr Kungé prayed for Tshs 200,000/= as the consultation fee, which was paid when he approached the advocate for legal advice. On the other hand, the respondent prayed that the consultation fee of Tshs. 25,000/= be granted instead of Tshs. 200,000/=. This item is to be guided by the 12th for Schedule of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2015, which provides consultation to be 50,000/= per 15 minutes. The applicant claims Tshs 200,000/= for item 1, though he did not explain the time spent on this item. Tshs 200,000/= is too high, as correctly submitted by the respondent. I think Tshs 20,000/= is fair and just. I grant Tshs 20,000/= as a consultation fee for item 1. For items 3-6 on the attendance fee, I have scanned the court records; it shows that the applicant’s counsel was present all day, for which the application was scheduled th for hearing/orders; thus, he was present on the 6 of May,2026; 7 May,2026; 18 th th May,2026 and 15 June, 2026. While the applicant's counsel was submitting on the th issue, he did not specify the time spent in court on the occasion specified. Since the applicant’s counsel did not specify the time spent, and thus there is no doubt that he appeared/ attended the court and given that it was they were arguing on the preliminary objection, this court grant think that 15minutes per attendance is fair. It should be understood that there is no scale for hearing or mentioning. The scale provided is that the cost for attending the court for a hearing for the first 15 minutes is Tshs. 50,000/=. It means that if a party attends court either for a hearing or mention and spends no more than 15 minutes, their entitlement is Tshs. 50,000/=. See item 3 (though it is numbered 23) of the Eighth Schedule to the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2015. Thus, the determining factor is time spent and not the purpose of attending court. In the interest of justice, Tshs 50,000/= per attendance in four attendances is fair and just to be taxed, thus Tshs 200,000/=. I proceed to grant Tshs 200,000/= for items 3, 4, 5, and 6. Page. 5 Item for disbursement: the fee for filing a counter affidavit and notice of preliminary objection, Tshs 40,000/=. This item is charged according to the First Schedule, item 5 of the Court Fee Rules, 2018, as it provides that the fee for filing a document in court is Tshs 20,000/=. In this application, two documents were filed, thus counter affidavit and a notice of preliminary objection, which cost Tshs 40,000/=. For that reason, I tax Tshs 40,000/= as the costs for disbursement. In this event, this application is taxed at Tshs 1,620,000/=. The remaining amount is taxed off. M.O. NDYEKOBORA, TAXING OFFICER 11/09/2026 Right of reference is explained. M.O. NDYEKOBORA, TAXING OFFICER 11/09/2026 Ruling delivered on the 11 day of September 2026 in the presence of Mr Kungé th Wabeya, the learned counsel for the applicant and the respondent in person. M.O. NDYEKOBORA, TAXING OFFICER 11/09/2026 Dated at MUSOMA this 11th of September 2026 . M. O NDYEKOBORA TAXING OFFICER Page. 6