Reference No

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM REFERENCE NO. 5977 OF 2024 (Originating from Bill of Costs No. 127 of2022 which Originates from Land Case No. 320 of2017) KCB BANK TANZANIA LIMITED....................................... APPLICANT VERSUS MARIAM OMARI ZAHORO (As administratix of the Estate of late Omari Zahoro).......................................................... IstRESPONDENT HUDUMA GINNERS LIMITED......................................................... 2ndRESPONDENT SADIKI RAMADHANI BWANGA...................................................... 3rdRESPONDENT MEM AUCTIONERS & GENERAL BROKERS LTD.....4th RESPONDENT HASSAN ALLY MAWA....................................................................... 5thRESPONDENT RULING Date of last Order: 11th September 2024 Date of Ruling: 3Cfh September 2024 LALTAIKA, J, The Applicant herein KCB BANK TANZANIA LIMITED has moved this Court under section under Rule 7(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration order GN No. 363 of 2015. She is desirous of the following: 1. That the Honorable Court be pleased to reserve the Ruling of the Taxing Master Hon. Chuguiu DR dated 10th May 2023 on reasons and grounds that 2. The Taxing Officer wrongly taxed the costs generally without division to each of the Respondents. 3. Costs of this Application be provided for. 4. Any and further reliefs the Hon. Court shall deem just and fit to grant. Since the application was filed, none of the Respondents entered appearance. Having ordered substituted service but in vain, the court granted leave to proceed ex-parte against the Respondents. The next part of this Ruling is a submission made by Ms. Regina Kiumba, learned Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. Kiumba submitted that the application was to request the court to reverse the ruling of the taxing officer, Hon. Chugulu, DR, dated May 10th, 2023, in Bill of Costs No. 127 of 2022. She explained that in the said ruling, the taxing master had awarded costs amounting to Tshs. 9,135,000.00 to the 1st Respondent without dividing the sum among the Respondents involved in Bill of Costs No. 127 of 2022. Ms. Kiumba prayed that the contents of the affidavit sworn by Ndehorio S. Ndesamburo be adopted to form part of her submissions. She stated that her application was based on an error committed by the trial taxing officer in delivering the ruling in Bill of Costs No. 127 of 2022, which stemmed from Land Case No. 320 of 2017 between the 1st Respondent and the 1st Applicant, as well as the 2nd to 5th Respondents. According to Ms. Kiumba, the court had awarded costs to the 1st Respondent, as reflected in Annexure TMA-1 at page 37, paragraph 5 of the judgment, where the Applicant and the 2nd to 5th Respondents were condemned to pay the costs of the case. After the delivery of the judgment and decree in Land Case No. 320 of 2017, Ms. Kiumba recounted, the 1st Respondent had filed her bill of costs and was awarded Tshs. 9,135,000.00, but the amount had not been apportioned among the Respondents, including the Applicant. She argued that in her ruling on the bill of costs, the taxing officer did not adhere to the court's judgment and decree in Land Case No. 320 of 2017, which had condemned all Defendants to pay the costs of the case. To support her submissions, Ms. Kiumba referred to the case of Shabani Amuri Sudi (the administrator of the estate of the late Amuri Sudi) vs. Kazumari Hamisi Mpala, Misc. Land Application No. 30 of 2019 (unreported), and the case of 01am Tanzania Limited vs. Halawa Kwilabya, DC Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1999. She cited these cases to emphasize that court orders are binding and must be obeyed, arguing that if such orders were disregarded, the justice system would collapse. She further noted that the court order in Land Case No. 320 of 2017 had not been reversed or appealed and, therefore, should be implemented as it stood, requiring all Defendants to pay the costs awarded to the 1st Respondent. Ms. Kiumba contended that the failure of the taxing master in Bill of Costs No. 127 of 2022 to divide the total costs among the Respondents was an error warranting the court's intervention. She argued that the ruling by the taxing officer was incapable of execution by either party since it did not specify whether the Respondents were jointly or severally liable, nor did it allocate the costs to each Respondent. In conclusion, Ms. Kiumba submitted that the ruling by the taxing officer was illegal and erroneous, urging the court to reverse it accordingly. I have dispassionately considered the submission by the learned Advocate for the Applicant. The essence of the Applicant's complaint is that the taxing officer awarded costs to the 1st Respondent in the sum of Tshs. 9,135,000.00 without apportioning the costs between the 2nd to 5th Respondents, thereby rendering the ruling incapable of execution. The facts giving rise to this application stem from Land Case No. 320 of 2017, where the 1st Respondent was awarded costs against the Applicant and the 2nd to 5th Respondents. After the conclusion of the case, the 1st Respondent filed Bill of Costs No. 127 of 2022. The Taxing Officer awarded the 1st Respondent Tshs. 9,135,000.00, but failed to specify whether the Respondents were jointly or severally liable for the payment of the said costs or to divide the sum among them. The Applicant has moved this court, contending that the failure of the taxing officer to apportion the costs constitutes an error that renders the ruling unenforceable. The Applicant, therefore, seeks an order reversing the ruling. It is a well-established principle that court orders must be clear, precise, and enforceable. In the absence of clarity on how the costs are to be borne by the Respondents, the ruling becomes impractical for execution, leaving the parties in a state of uncertainty. Further, the judgment and decree in Land Case No. 320 of 2017 condemned the Applicant and the 2nd to 5th Respondents to pay the costs of the case. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the taxing officer to either apportion the costs among the Respondents or specify that they were jointly and severally liable for the total sum. The failure to do so amounts to an error that justifies this court's intervention. This position is fortified by the case of 01am Tanzania Limited vs. Halawa Kwilabya, (supra), where the court emphasized that court orders must be obeyed and implemented as issued. Similarly, in Shabani Amuri Sudi vs. Ka~umari Hamisi Mpala, (supra) the court reaffirmed that orders which are not reversed or appealed must be complied with. In the present case, the court order in Land Case No. 320 of 2017 has neither been reversed nor appealed. As such, it remains binding and enforceable. However, the ruling of the taxing officer has failed to give effect to this order by not addressing the apportionment of costs. The omission not only constitutes an error but also renders the ruling incapable of execution, which undermines the administration of justice. For the foregoing reasons, I find merit in this application. The ruling of the Taxing Officer, Hon. Chugulu, DR, dated 10th May 2023, in Bill of Costs No. 127 of 2022 is hereby set aside. I PROCEED to make the following orders: 1. The ruling of the Taxing Officer in Bill of Costs No. 127 of 2022 is reversed. 2. The bill of costs is remitted to the Taxing Officer for fresh determination, with specific directions to apportion the costs among the Respondents or to state clearly whether they are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the total sum. 3. No order as to costs for this application. It is so ordered. E.I. LALTAIKA JUDGE 30/09/2024 Court Judgment delivered this 30th day of September 2024 in the absence of both parties. R- LALTAIKA JUDGE ' \«RW%B0/09/2024 '/ __ 4Vn oyxjv