20001214 TZCA Dar es Salaam

t 1 .. ZlU{CARGO LIMITED 2. JOHN MMARI ~ oouoooooooeooooo EESPOI\!"DENTS This is a b:i.11 of costs filed by the Applica.'1t JOHN L.BSSA, the original Appellant.. Ee claims for a total of Shs. 6,679, 900/= as costs which he incurred in pro,secuting his case in the High Court and the Appeal in this Court. The details of the costs is as itemized in his bill of cGEC-8 w11foh consists of 83 items. The A:ppl.icar:i; a~,3 "- o.:o. ed. c.:1d argued this nr,plica.t ion in person. The Respondents' Advocate 1 il:r. Ndyanabo who was duly served twice fill 7/9/2000 and 19/L~/c.,J00 a.id not appear to respond· to the claims and the:cefore ·::~.e hoaring proceeded ex::::,erte. As saj_d e3.rJ.ier 1 ~he A;:,pJ.ic:mt' s bill of costs comprises of a m:L"tture of co,5ts a.rising both in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal. The immed:!.ate i,ssuc i.s whether the taxing officer of the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to tax the costs arising from the proceedings in the High Court and. whether it is corr;petent for the Ap1)licant to present such a combined bill of costs. The powers of taxation by the taxing officer of the Court of Appeal are conferred by rule 118 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1979., That rule limits the powers of the taxing officer of the t ,, •• I 2 2 (, Court of Appeal to taxation of costs arising from Applications and Appeals to the Court of Appeal. The holding in the

case of Azim 0f 1995 (unreported) is elaborate on the jurisdiction of the taxing officers. In that ce.se similar situa.tion arose in which a single bill of costs comprising of costs incurred in the High Court aTJ.d those which wer2 i. r:i.c::Tri.':d :Ln the Court of Appeal was filed for taxati::.,::l ;:iy th2: b:::ing officer of the Court of Appeal.. The Court 1 'It is fairly apparent that the power of a taxing officer under sub-rule (1) is limited to taxing costs arising out of appJ.ications or appeals to the Court of Appeal. That is the plain ar.d ordinary meaning of t:t--,.at sub-rule, c:.nd I ca.n other crm;:1truction on the provision. The corollary then is that costs arising in t~1.e F:i..gh Court are t8.xed by the Regist::::-ar or Deputy Regiffsra.:: of the ~1·'-ch (~ourt in his c.3pacity as taxing ,_ :c:·'•icer of tlla.t Court, as provided for under r. 3 of' the Advocates 1 Remuneration and taxation of costs Rules (Governpent Notice No. 514 of 1991). Thus a bill of costs presented in the Court of Appeal should not contain items of costs arising in the High Court, because as far as I could gather there is nothing in the Court of Appeal Rules empowering a taxing officer of the Court of Appeal to tax such costse:·i 0 0 ~/3 3 It is clear therefore tha_t the manner in which the bill of costs has been presented mB.kes it to be incompetent. Consequently therefore the bill of

costs is dismissed. The Applicant is at liberty to file two separa_te sets of Bill of Costs so that costs arising in the High Court are taxed by the taxing officer of that Court and those which ar:i_se ::_n the Court of Appeal are taxed by the taxing off:i_c,::,_' c:c i;Li2 Court as the law provides. Dated at D,n~ es Salaam this 14th day of December, 2000. -.... . ,. lf :·:'.".)'..,. ..... ' ~ t . . ◄ . .J~. ' !' -