NA TZHC Mwanza 1
In the absence of receipts or sufficient evidence, only a portion (half) of the claimed costs is allowed. Further, as per the appellate court's order, only 75% of the allowed costs are payable, and a specific refund must be deducted.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- NA TZHC Mwanza 1
- Parties
- Applicant: KIRIMI M. MASSE; Applicant: JOSIAH C. KEBIKA; Applicant: SITON WARUBA; Applicant: MWITA RUBIRYA; Decree Holder: MWITA MAKORI; Decree Holder: CHERE M. ATIKO; Decree Holder: MWIKWABE NYAMURYA; Decree Holder: JOEN CILACELI; Respondent: MARWA s/o NGEGA
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 1991
- Procedural Posture
- Bill of Costs Application / Taxation of Costs After Appeal
- Outcome
- Partly allowed
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Evidence of Expenses, Enforcement of Costs Orders
- 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
KIRIMI M. MASSE
Applicant
JOSIAH C. KEBIKA
Applicant
SITON WARUBA
Applicant
MWITA RUBIRYA
Applicant
MWITA MAKORI
Decree Holder
CHERE M. ATIKO
Decree Holder
MWIKWABE NYAMURYA
Decree Holder
JOEN CILACELI
Decree Holder
MARWA s/o NGEGA
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Bill of Costs Application / Taxation of Costs After Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to the full amount claimed as costs without supporting receipts
- 2 How much of the claimed costs should be allowed in the absence of receipts
- 3 Effect of prior appellate order limiting costs to 75%
Ratio Decidendi
In the absence of receipts or sufficient evidence, only a portion (half) of the claimed costs is allowed. Further, as per the appellate court's order, only 75% of the allowed costs are payable, and a specific refund must be deducted.
Court Disposition
Partly allowed
Orders
- Bill of Costs taxed at shs. 357,325/=
- shs. 60,000/= to be deducted as refund to respondent
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE filGH COuRT OF TANZllNIA t{r1 MWi'ilf7.". .~ (RC) crvn. CJJ3E HO~ 11 OF 1988 1- -~ KIRIM!l. M.dSSE JOSI)Pll c. KEBJil{A snroN WARUBA MlITTA RUBIRYll. MWITA Mt.KORI .e DECREE :::..OLDER Ia CHERE M.fi.TIKO MWIKWABE NYiUURYA JOEN CIL'l.CBLI. Versus MllRWA s/o NGEGA • -• • • • • l , j • • c • .. •. '9 " , JUDGMEFJT Hor.mm RUGll.lNUYJll'.ID,' - DR (TWNG .Ml'HfER) ... ~~ This ·, is an application for Bill of Costs: arising from IT.C Civil Ca,se No,. 11/88 ~4 Court .Appeal Civil Case No,. 31/91!, There arc 27 items to be tamed 0011tai.ned into two applications. ··, ., The total amount to be taxed amounto fo shs.c 953,400/=• The 001:r~s. were incurred while the applicants def ended their case in both the· Iligh Court and Court Appeal,. The oos-/;s are said to be for aocomodation; fare; foodf and attending tho Court at vatj.ous days~ l..t the hearing of this applica·tio119 the applicants were .rop:rese..Y1ted by the 2nd and 3rd doore<;) holders~ They adopted tho oonta"'lt.a of their ariplication. ThEzy", however, submi ttcd ·l;.b,at after ( they had filed the Bill of Costa Application., they oontinued to incurr ~0n:ces th...'T'Qugh attending the Co-..U"~ to prosecut~ tlieir Bill of Costs appJ.?-catiorie The appµcation has not been supported by any voucher or receipt for the claimed expences or oos~s• J\t the hearing of the a,pplic~tion the applicant attempted to tender p.zymont vouchers ~from r' . . that -~he applicants -wore thei~ village Government which i11cl:i.oated advanced some money for tra..1tsport, fooC½ and accommod.a.tionJ but no the:r~ waoLevi~~ce of how and 't1hether '~he same money was really \ <I spent for the same purpose. Tho. cloorrr.1011-lis were thus rejected.,. Rule 57 of ,GN 515 of 1991 :~w~_,, a Taxing Officer fo allow :,: •' . :vea,~onablo expcnces incurred by ·iihe parties or their witnesses, In this application, I have no doubt that the applicants did inctu"T a:::pences whil.e they def ended their case in bli>th the High_ Court and Court Appeal;, bu,t in the absmce oi' receipts, how do ,I satisfy rurself that the clained amo'Uht was really spent as indicated in the application and therefore a reftmd. is necessary'? In the absence of recem.pts, ancl by ·virtue of the powors- oonfirred upon me by Rule 51 hereinabove- mentioned,11 I will allow only ~ of the ar.iount claimed in all 27 i_"G~1s. That being -~he po¢:iiion, the Bill of Costs is taxed at slJ.s. 416,700/= wfldch is allowed, while shs,. 476, 700/= are disallowed and taxed off IS· of However, in Ji;he jud.@rrent of tho Court,LAppeal, the Coui~JG Ordered .that "the appellant ( the respondent in this application) shall pey 1lo . the responden·i;s. ( t4e applica.11·i;s in th.is application) onl.,~ 7:ffe of the Costs. lzy' oompata.tion, 7~ of the amotmt hereinbefore allowed as Costs, brings the results to shs. 357,325/=• The sane Court of Appeal Judgment made a.."l order Jlihat the :respondent . ·' ' (in this .. 1,. a,pplication) was to -be :refunded shs. 6o,ooo;1= by the applicant (in t this application). At the hearing of this ~pplication, the I I respondent raised the same point; and since :'.chere was no obj 00-'liion from the applicants in respect of tho same aTtlount, the same shall be reduced from the amount. al.ready allowed as :costs. In the final results, shs. ~7,325/= a.re allowQa.. Tho parties a.re posted to Rulo 5 of GN ~115 of 1991, to nalce a :ref enoe to the Hon. Judge within 21 days, in case either party is