19970314 TZHC Dar es salaam

IN THE COURT OF APMlAL OF r.1.'ANZ.ANIA J ·~.P!\k,~s--~~Yl1. C!VIL APPLICATION NO~ 12 OF 1996 (TAXAT.ION) BETvJEEN AND A~TORNEY GENERAL e O O O O o • O O •· 0 0 e e • 0 e e . RESPONDENT ----~-~---~=-.. -. - RULING .Oil 27th August 1996 the Court o~ Appeal (Befor.e a single) announced its decision in Civil application . No., 12 . of . 1996 .. in .-which . the applicant was Attorney General ·and respondent was Mr. MoW._ Nyakangara. ·In the said Civil application the Atto:i;-ney General was applying for extension of time to file an appeal out of time under rule 8 of the Court of Appeal rules. The application,was dismissed with costs in favour of the respondent. Thereafter the respondent Mr. M.W. Nyakangara who is now the applicant and represented by the learne~ Counsel Mr. Nyanduga filed a bill of costs amounting to Sbs.1,48~,74o.oo. In tlie hearing of . -this taxation the respondent 1 A~torney General was represented by Mrs. Macha, Senior State Attorney•. From the beginning Mr. N;yanduga, Counsel for the applicant was candid enough to state 'that the applicant Mr. Nyakangara reside in Dodoma and therefore most of the issues and preparation in the Civil application No. 1_2 of 1996 were done b'y him i.e~ Mr. Nyakangara himself, and tha"c the Counsel was engaged immediately before the heati_ng date • . This version is also reflected in the ruling of the Court at page 2 • # • • •• i \if the ruling which scys: t 2The respondent actu·ally filed tvio objections, the first one on 25th April 1996 and the second file on 27th May 1996, both without the gv_idance of Counsel. At the hear~g Mr, Nyanduga decided to ab8.ndon the earlier objection and relied on the letter one only ••• H In his submission to support his claims .in the bill of costs l.r• Nyanduga merely recapitulated what was in _the bill and failed lo produce any evidence, any receipts, or any document.:- to support his clai~s. The only fact is that. the applicant resides in Dodoma. The question is whether that fact is enough for nie or any other taxing officer to award any claims on transport and travelling, accommodation, meals and breakfast ~ithout a.~y evidence to support these claims. Mrs. Macha for the respondent submitted that travelling expenses, taxis fare, hotel charges must all.be supported by the receipts. T-ne learned Counsel queried whether the respondent was· staying at Mgulani Hostel lif'rae of charge0 0 If he was paying the money, then the receipts must be issued in accordance to the business transactions. Let me repeat what was said in Civil Appfal No. 10 of 1982 ( taxation of ' Bill of Costs) ~1The receipts are issued to Customers in order to verify the transaction of services rendered .,...... between the- parties and therefore non-produ.ction of the rec0ipts means failure to prove t~. transaction of services (buyer and seller)Ho Mrs~ Mac'.ha also wondered why i tem.s 2, 121 1L~, 19, 23 1 25, 30, 34, 36, 41 1 46, 48, 53 and 56 are showing that the respondeX;t was staying i..'1 the Hotel while in the submission he said he was staying at Mgulani Hostel·. Although Mi"• Nyanduga ·submitted that the issue whether the respr1ndent was staying at Hotel or Hostel is a minor one, I do not share his view. Hotel,s and Hostels are different-types of business in all ~pheres from the type of licences to the services~, In order ••• /3 3 - to tax a bill of Costs judiciously every aspect 2nd item must be clear and well.- supported py evidence or receipts. It is unwise and'. quite difficult for a taxing offiter to determine costs arbitrary or by guessing. It is the duty of the dec1~ee holder to assist and convince the trucing officer by way of evidence and receipts in ax1y bill of costs .. Having gone that far, I now tax this bill as following; Item I typing charges is taxed at s~s.5 1 000/= only, items 2 to 7 are taxed at nil 'for lack of evidence/receipts; Item 8 is taxed at shs.200/=_as I presented; Item 9 is taxed at shs.2,000~00 only; Item 10 to 19 are taxed at nil for lack of receipts or evidence; Item 20 is taxed at 2,000.00 enly; Item 21 to 23 are taxed at nil for lack of evidence/receipts; Item 24 is truced at shs.5000.00 only; Items 25 to 30 a.re taxed at nil for \ \ lack of- supporting evidence_or receipts; Item 31 which include Shs.200/= -filli..'1.g f~es is taxed at shs.2,200.00 only; Iteins 32 to 41 are taxed at niL. for lack of receipts or evidence; Item 42,. instruction to defend respondent is taxed c.1.t _slIB.150,000.00 only because it is evident that the Counsel was engaged at eleventh hour. Item 43 is taxed at shs.2,000.00 _ only; Items 44 to 53 are taxed at nil for lack of evidence or receipts; Item 54 is ·taxed at shs.2,000.00 only while Items 55 to 56 are taxed at nil -for lac.l( of receipts or evidence. In the final analysis,this bill of costs is taxed at shs.170,4oo.oo and truced off shs.1,318,340.oo. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 14th day of March, 1997• rt,;1::::"· ~/ /- ' ( M. s. SHANGltLI ) TI~XING OFFICER . - - ...... •.11. ------·• • •..,-:..a . . . . . .- . - I' ...