19921222 TZCA Dar es Salaam

u· tv ~ ~ --;;,_... ~ .. 'I_,. '·•. DJ THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA ·, ~DARES SALAAM CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7 OF 1991 BEI'WEEN M1iR I.11M ABDALLA FUND I •• , •••••••••• , AP PELL.AN'l' VERSUS 1-:.ASSIM ABDALIJ.. FARSI •••••• , , • • • • • • RESPONDENT RULING SHAI-IGALI 2 DR-CA 2 TliXING OFFICER: T'uis · is a. bill of costs filed by Raja.bu .lu.li Hamidi on behalf itf and being next-friend to the appellant Mariam Abdalla. Tundi, a minor, (In the C0urt of I..ppeal the appellant was represented by the famous Dar es Salaa;n Ldvoca.te, Mr, Marando from N.M. Ma.rand• 1\ Go., /,rlvooo;l;n,~,) The respond.ent is Kassim 1;.bdalah Farsi. In his bill of Costs Mr. Ra.jabu Alli Ilamidi consolidated both costs incurred in the Lindi District Court to the t1.me of shs.28,420.00; High C.urt at Mtwara to the- tune of sbs.61,9M,OO; Court of 1.ppeal of Tanzania in the Application for leave ·~o appeal aha,, 79t800.00 and the Court of f.ppeal (main suit)· shs.602,230.,00. Total sb.s. 7'7!-1 ,360~.0. Before the hearing of the application Ivlr. Raja.bu Alli Ha.midi submitted ti.lat he has been advioed to ·withdraw the ~sta i,n.curred in the Lower Courts i.e. Lindi District Court and Iligb. Court - Mtwara becm:tse Court of ,jppeal Ta,,--::i..-ig Officer deals with cests in.curred in ·the Court of Appeal only. There was no objection from the responclen·t nnd. the a,pr,lioo:bion wn11 1,rrn.,rt;nd fne1,lrn:1:l;h• Appa.rently, his application for th~ costs inoUXTed in the Lower Courta w-0\ll,c]A.'t oooo./2 2 have gone far for determination because there is no order from the Court of Appeal to that effect. The Court of l~ppeal ·granted the appellant with the costs in the application for leave to appeal No. 16 of 1990 in the style ofi 11 1.s prayed, costs of this application shall abide the result of the appeal." Having succeeded in the appeal, the appellant is therefore entitled awarded to hir:1 conto, l1\n:-t.horm0ro he, wn.o n.lr,(, L no:;tn 1.n tho rn,-:-.in o.ppe0l when the Court ,:,.nouncedl 11 1d'ter seying so, we e,llow the .::,ppee,l wi·i;h costs. 11 It is npp<'..I'ent thc..t the e,ppellwt bill of costs should be deter- mined from -~hose decisions only. I therefore proceed to nssess the presented costs incurred in the c..pplic.::.tion sh.79,000/= c..nd in the c.,pped sb.s.602,230/=. · 'Potd shse682,030. The following items Nos. 46, 47, 51, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 69, 70, 72, 76, 77, 80, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 107 o.ncl 114 which covers 11.ir tickets, L.irport ch[l.Tgeo, instru- ction fees p;:,.,id to the 2.dvoc~te for the o.,ppellc..nt, bus fc..re from Lindi to l'litw~n .:-nd Mtwo.rc.. to Lindi, fees for High Court proceedi- ngo, fooo for bjJuling oourt rooorrlrJ, fr,11n :l'n1· :f':1·1:1n1.: ontu··h rooorcla, Md fees for filing Bill of cost::; weI"e cogently supported by genuine receipts hence not contcotod. I the1•efore tax then o.s presented. Items Nos. 48, 58, 71, 78, 82, 90 101 Md 106 which covers tc!Xi cl1c..rges mcinly from D:,.r es S;:,.,lc..c, 1..irport to the City c..nd vice versa were not opposed or chc.llenged by the respondent. Ind.eed the cmount so't.,ght of shs.1,500/= per trip is not oo::obito.nt. I therefore t.'.'.J: thee ns prceented. . .... /3 . ' 11!: 3 The seriously contested it0ms were t,1ose presenting cos".;s for Mec..ls, D.Cconm1odc.,tion :::nd tro.nsport c:1;::,rg.Js c..t Dz.r cs S2.lc..--un a.~ounting shs.5,000/= per d~a There D.re several items according to the d3.tes showing the so.me c'Jnount of shs.5,000/r.. The respo- ndent submitted thc.,t, such 2.mount :;_:3 too big for the period of 1990. He also stc..ted th;:.t the .::-,pp:i.ico.nt wo.s stcying with his relc..tives while in Dc..r cs Sula,.,_"')11 2.Ytcl to disprove tho.t he should produce receipts "to support his clc..ims for shs.5,noo/= per d.c-zy-. The c..pplica.nt st~ted ·chat he ~'1.Cl misplc.ced his receipts but he wc1.s 2.ble to produce one ,:,,,ccommodaU.on receipt which indicate that ., ho otnyccl ci.t Creoo,ml; Guoir~ IlouEJu Dc,..1: ,·,n i:l11.J:,.11J11 foi: r; ,ln,yu u.ntl I po.id 6,000/=. '.rl1is mcc.J1s he pc..id shs. 1,000/= per o.,v. In uddition :I I would -~:1creforc O.W<',rd him shs.400/= for breakfnst, shs.80C1/'= for lunch end shs.800/= for dinner Totc..l per dcy shs.3,000/=. Therefore Items r.'os. 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 65,89 and 1e2 c..rc ·cx:od c..t shG.3,000/.,, co..ch. I tro: off ohs.2,000/.. nt each item. In regc.rcl to Hem No,. 74, which preys for meui, accommodation and tr£'J1sport ch2,rges for 31 dcys to the tune of shs.155,000.00, I tD.X off sh~.62,000.00 o.ntl o.llow shs.93,000.00. In it0.m no. 79 which cra.ve for meD.ls anct accommodation for ndent correctly submitted thc:t the 2.pplicnrd; decided to sto,y at Mtwn.ra waiting for '.;he High Court records on his own will because he could have gone back to Lindi at c.. bus fare of shs.230.00 only and come back to Etwo.ru c.1,fter 7 clc'"'Ys to collect the records. Ind0ed., t:10 conduct of the applicant of stcying in. e.. hotel for 7 da,ys -~o '.;11e tune of shs.18,900.00 whi10 he could easly .go . homa a.t a. bus :care ot shs.230.00 is unte.ua.ble - I thCI'Of.ore reject !, ••.. /4 i J_;,t. 4 tho coots p:r;~.yo(1 W1l~or i.tcm 79. at the rate of ohs.3,000/= per de.y. 'The name methodology is applied under i-:;cm 97 where shs.20,000/= are tazcd. off and only shs.30,000.00 arc allowed. Tho s~nc is also applied under i'"em 103 where sh::;.12,000.00 arc t0.1~cd off enc: only shs.18,000.00 o.rc allowed... 1..loo under item 10~,_..1_ tc>.::: o-.Zf shs;24,ooo/= and allow shs.36,000/= only. Item 105 c..lso follow the sequence a..-id I tax off ohs. 8,000 / = 2.ncl allow shs .12, ooo/= only. Tho 2.pplica.nt submi ttod tho.t there were dD.ys as shown under item 109, 110, 111 2.nd ·112 when he wc..s forced. to stay at Mtwara during the preparation oi -~he. court cl.ecrcc. Having carcfuly n.llow sho.800/=. I aloo ta:i: of-.;'. s:1s.400.oo undu:r Hum 110 o.nd allow shs.1,600.00. Under item 111 I tn:;:: off shs.1,100.00 and allow shs.1 1 600/= only. I .:-.lso ta:i: off ohs.1,100/= und.cr item 112 and allow shs.1,600.00 only. Under Hc;;1 57 I t22 off shc.&)0,00 cUld allow only s::.is.1,200/= 66, 67 2..nc'. 68 arc each ta;:cd off shs.1,100.00 an.cl shs.1,600.00 only allowed -~o each. Hems 75 and. 94 u..rc taxed as presenteC.:. Hem 87 whic11 is security for coo'"s □:1:-.5,000/= is rcjcc'ccd for- thwith 2.l1t1 -~he .:i.pplicc.nt is c.clvice<l -~o c.'cemancl his deposit 1"1-om the High Court. Items No 108 the eJ~cnses while on the wa::, to 1:.-twarn. il'I ho:1•,,l1y J'oduond to ol:10.1)()0/~ n.ncl oho.:>.,200/,. ul'o teaed The last Hem is No. 113 which cre..vc for shs.30 9 000/-= as costs fo:r pre.pa.rations oi' the bill of costs. There is no -objoction ..... /5 .r 5 thc.t the appliccmt ii1currcd s0.mc expehses in the preparation of and n.bove -bhe reasonable expenses. I therefore ta.,-:: off shs'~ 15,000/= anc:t allow only shs.15,OOO.OO. all the items, ctnd n.11 relevant circumstMccs of the case, I tc..x of costa. Respondent to pe.y slis.476.,430/= only to tho applicant. DJ.TZIJ \aj; DLR .ES SJ.L!...£1.: thi_~~ .?2nd day of December, 1992.