Mlela

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA TABORA SUB REGISTRY AT TABORA TAXATION REFERENCE NO. 2 OF 2023 (Arising from the decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Tabora in Taxation Cause No. 04 of2023) MLELA RAMADHANI (As the Administrator of the estate of the late Maganga Mlela)........................................................................ APPLICANT VERSUS MAHONA BUTUNGULU.............................................. RESPONDENT Last order: 29/05/2024 Ruling date: 1/08/2024 RULING MANGO, J The Applicant unsuccessfully pursued Land Application No. 42 of 2017 before District Land and Housing Tribunal for Tabora and its subsequent appeal, Land Appeal No. 20 of 2017 before the High Court of Tanzania, Tabora sub registry. The appeal was dismissed with costs. The Respondent, a decree holder, filed Taxation Cause No. 4 of 2023 before the High Court of Tanzania, Tabora sub-registry. The bill of costs comprises of items with total costs of Tshs. 1,420,000/-. The taxing officer taxed off Tshs. 1,300,000/- for being unjustifiable costs. In her ruling the taxing officer stated clearly that she taxed off Tshs. 1,000,000/- presented as instruction fees because the Respondent prosecuted the appeal in person. Tshs. 300,000/- which was presented as costs of attending court proceedings as per item 2-7 of the bill of costs was also taxed off because they were not borne by Court record. At the end, the bill of costs was taxed at Tshs 420,000/- which includes Tshs. 120,000/- from the bill of costs presented before the Court and Tshs. 300,000/- being advocate fee for attending bill of costs. Aggrieved by the decision of the taxing officer, the Applicant, a judgement debtor, filed the application at hand praying for the following orders: - i. Reference from the ruling of taxing master be determined and order be reversed ii. Award of Tshs 420,000/- be revised and set aside iii. Any other relief(s) this Court will see fit to grant When the matter was called on for hearing both parties appeared in person and prosecuted the application in persona. Both being laypersons they had very brief submissions. The Applicant registered his dissatisfaction with the amount awarded to the Respondent. He submitted that, the Respondent filed a bill of costs claiming a total of Tshs. I, 420,000/- as the amount incurred in prosecuting the appeal. The taxing officer taxed off 1.3 million for being unrealistic. He argued that, after taxing off the unrealistic costs, the taxing officer proceeded to list other costs which he did not understand. He wonders why the Court proceeded to grant Tshs. 420,000/- after it found that the bill of costs filed by the Respondent contains unrealistic figures. 2 He added that, the advocate who prepared the bill of costs did not represent the Respondent during the appeal as noted by the taxing officer, but he merely appeared during bill of costs application. He is of the view that, the Respondent does not deserve to be paid the amount awarded to him. The Respondent submitted that, the bill of costs was properly taxed. He conceded that, his advocate did not appear during prosecution of the appeal, he attended only on the date the judgement was delivered. He is of the view that, the amount taxed is proper since the Court taxed off instruction fees and awarded the remaining costs which it found to be correct and fair. I have considered submissions by both parties and Court record. The only issue in this case is whether it was proper for a taxing officer to award Tshs 420,000/- after she taxed off Tshs. 1,300,000/- from the bill of costs presented by the Respondent. In determining this, I sought guidance from Order 48 of the Advocate Remuneration Rules, GN. 264 of 2015 which provides that, where more than one sixth of the total amount of a bill of costs is taxed off, exclusive of court fees is disallowed, a party presenting the bill for taxation shall not be entitled to the costs of such taxation. In the matter at hand the total amount in the bill of costs presented by the Respondent was Tshs 1,420,000/-. Court fees which appears under item 10 of the bill of costs is Tshs. 20,000/-. If the same is excluded in computing one sixth of the bill of costs, the amount claimed in the bill of costs will be 1,400,000/-. One sixth of Tshs 1,400,000/- is 233,000/-. The amount taxed off is Tshs. 1,300,000/-. 3 Applying the dictates of Order 48, the decree holder was not entitled to be granted any costs claimed in the bill of costs since the amount taxed off, Tshs 1,3000,000/- is more than 233,000/-which is one-sixth of the total amount presented in the bill of costs exclusive of court fees. In that regard the amount awarded by the taxing officer, Tshs 420,000/- is hereby set aside for being granted contrary to Order 48 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The application is hereby granted as prayed. Dated at Tabora this 1st day of August 2024 Z.D.MANGO JUDGE 4