NA TZHC Dar es Salaam 12
The court found that, except for item 2, the amounts claimed were reasonable and according to scale. For item 2, since the appeal did not proceed to full hearing and no intricate legal or factual issues were presented, only a reasonable amount for instructions to oppose was allowed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- NA TZHC Dar es Salaam 12
- Parties
- Applicant: Kaudimi Kaperja; Respondent: The Registrar of Buildings
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 1989
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Taxation of Costs After Withdrawal of Appeal
- Outcome
- Bill of costs taxed at 10,580/-, 30,000/- taxed off.
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Withdrawal of Appeal
- 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
Kaudimi Kaperja
Applicant
The Registrar of Buildings
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Taxation of Costs After Withdrawal of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 What is the appropriate amount to be taxed as costs after withdrawal of appeal?
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, except for item 2, the amounts claimed were reasonable and according to scale. For item 2, since the appeal did not proceed to full hearing and no intricate legal or factual issues were presented, only a reasonable amount for instructions to oppose was allowed.
Court Disposition
Bill of costs taxed at 10,580/-, 30,000/- taxed off.
Orders
- Bill of costs taxed at 10,580/-
- 30,000/- taxed off from item 2
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
L IN THE HIGH COURT OF TL.NZL.NI!i. ·fi..T. DAR. ~.S. _S/i.~t~N1... CIVIL L.PPEJ~L NO. 9 OF 1989 KAUDIMI:: KLPERJ:.. ••••.. , ••• .!~Pf LI CANT versu·s THE REGI,STRLR OF BUILDINGS •• RESPONDENT ?-. u: ;L; .I. ;N, g_ Cpunsel for the appellant having prayed for the withdrawal· of an appeal, the court (Masnnche,J), in its order dated 19/10/89, marked the ~ppeal as withdrawn with costs to the respondent. Followinr::: this, Mr. Kessaria who a1Jpeared for the resp0ndents filed a bill of costs for taxati~n. On 22-11-91 when the bill was fixed for taxation, Mr. Sempalawe, counsel for the appellant who was duly served, could not put up appearance, and for no apparent reason. Under these circumstances., Mr. Kessario. was allowed to proceed exparte. In his brief submission Mr. Kossaria asked the court to tax all items on the bill as presented. \ . Apart from the anount c~arged on item No.2, the amount charred arainst the rest of the items (1,3-13) is reasonable and according to scale,. Thus, the amount charged ae:ainst these items is taxed as presented. The amount charr:eo on item no.2 is 40,000/-. The amount is in respect of instructions to oppose an appeal. Goins by the proceedings, it is clear that the appeal did not proceed to .full hearinf, and Mr.· Ksssnria did not make any .presentation on the matter. Indeed, on rending, the memorandum, ~he appeal does not appear to present any intrioe,te point of fact cir Law. In fairness, Mr. Kessaria is entitled to such amount whiah is comensurate to the likely efforts he □ icht have put in preparatiol for opposing the appeal. I am aw2-rding 10,000/- as instructione; to oppose the appeal and 30,000/- taxed off .. In the ~inal analysis, the entire bill .is taxed at 10,580/ and 30 ,000/- taxed off. It is order.od a.o.oordincly •· J .J .ru~IJJ~GE. T/MASTER I GERTI.FY THAT IT IS 1\. TRUE COPY FROM TH~\ ORIG~. ,; , 1o v'"--'' DEP REGISTRLR . ~ 1.- ES SALL.AM DAR~-............._...,._,l- ........ -·- -.• 1', -~- ...e, ••• I r