Magidinga Jidai & 12 Others vs Kadele Lugwesa Sengelema (Administrator of the Estate of the Late Sengelema Kadele)

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT SHINYANGA TAXATION CAUSE NO. 000020595 OF 2026 MAGIDINGA JIDAI & 12 OTHERS .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF VERSUS KADELE LUGWESA SENGELEMA (ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE SENGELEMA KADELE) .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT RULING MARIKI, DR The decree holders herein Magidinga Jidai and 12 others were defendants in Land case no 4508/2025 of this court. The said case was filed by Kadele Lugwesa Sengelema (as administrator of the estate of the late Sengelema Kadele), who shall herein be referred as judgment debtors. The said case was withdrawn upon a prayer by the judgment debtor and the court awarded costs to the decree holders herein, who were originally defendants. This ruling is for purposes of taxing the costs. During taxation, only the 8 decree holder appeared while the rest were absent. Being th mindful of the law that the taxing officer may proceed with taxation in the absence of parties, I dispensed with the presence of the decree holders. The judgment debtor appeared in person. The 8 decree holder just requested the court to tax Tshs. 5,000,000/= without th clarifying how he arrived at the figure. On the part of the judgment debtor he opposed the costs generally by adding that there are some dates where the advocate did not attend. Page. 1 I have gone through the costs and I shall begin with item number one. This was instruction fees where the sum of Tshs. 6,000,000/= has been presented. In short, the suit did not end on merits but was withdrawn upon a request from the judgment debtor. There are no any submissions that were made to amplify on these costs. I will put into cosideration the time spent, labour engaged and complexity of the matter. The other justification for taxation of the instruction is that, at a particular time during the pendency of the suit, the court had dismissed a preliminary objection filed by the decree holders and ordered the judgment debtor to be paid costs. I will tax item 1 at Tshs. 3,000,000/= only. Item no 2, 4 up to 21 is advocates attendance allowance at the rate of Tshs. 200,000/= per attendance. I have gone through the record and the fact that there was no submission from the parties. First, from 16/3/2026 to 7/5/2026, which is 5 dates, parties attended in court to litigate on a preliminary objection. The said objection was dismissed with costs in favour of the judgment debtor. There is a proof of attending court 9 dates and I shall tax each attendance at Tshs. 50,000/= I have taxed it flat as there were no submissions to indicate that there were some dates where they attended for more than 15 minutes. Advocates attendance allowance is therefore taxed at Tshs 450,000/=. The next item for taxation concerns disbursements. I consider the costs for filing counter affidavit and Written Statement of Defence only which stands at Tshs. 70,000/=. These costs are taxed at Tshs. 70,000/= as presented.. In the final upshot, the whole bill of costs is hereby taxed at Tshs. 3,520,000/=. Order accordingly. Dated at SHINYANGA this 10th of September 2026 . G. E MARIKI TAXING OFFICER Page. 2