regent t ltd vs bg international ltd 2022 tzhccomd 150 20 may 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) AT PAR ES SALAAM COMMERCIAL REFERENCE NO.8 OF 2021 (Arising from Decision of the Taxing Officer Hon. M.N. Ntandu DR in Taxation Cause No. 76 of2020 Originating in Commercial Case No. 01/2018) BETWEEN REGENT TANZANIA LIMITED......................................... APPLICANT VERSUS BG INTERNATIONAL LIMITED............................... ..RESPONDENT Date of last order: 19th May, 2022 Date of Ruling: 20th May, 2022 RULING MKEHA, J In the present application, the applicant is moving the court to interfere with the decision of the Taxing Officer which according to the applicant, taxed the Bill of costs to the tune of TZS 235,011,658.02 contrary to the established principles under the law. The. application is made under Rule 7 (1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order GN. No. 264 of 2015, i Mr. Jovinson Kagirwa learned advocate represented the applicant. On the other hand, Mr. Gerald Nangi learned advocate represented the respondent. During hearing of the application, Mr. Kagirwa learned advocate submitted for the applicant that the Taxing Officer breaded the principle to the effect that allowable costs should not be kept high as to discourage litigation. According to the learned advocate, although the scale charged was proper in terms of the governing Rules, the taxing officer granted the whole of instruction fees in total disregard of surrounding environments in which costs were granted. The learned advocate for the applicant also adopted contents of the affidavit in support of the application which in paragraph 5 reflects reasons for the application as per the submission of the learned advocate hereinabove. Mr. Nangi learned advocate submitted in reply that, the advocate for the applicant did not allege departure from the prescribed rates. He then cited the decision in HAJI ATHUMANI ISSA VS RWEITAMA MATATU (1992) TLR 372, intervention in the matters of quantum is warned against. The learned advocate for the respondent urged the court not to disturb the Taxing Officer's decision. 2 The only determinative question is whether the Taxing Officer breached any taxation principle as to attract intervention of the court by way of reference. The learned advocate for the applicant is on record that the scale charged in awarding instruction fess was proper. He however maintained that by awarding TZS 235,011,658.02 the Taxing Officer rendered the costs excessive and unreasonable, contrary to the principle that allowable Costs should not be kept high as to discourage litigation. I am mindful that briefing should be based on the amount of work involved in preparing for hearing, the difficulties, importance of the case and the amount of money involved. Equally important, is the principle that, judges will in most cases not interfere with questions of quantum as these are regarded as matter with which the taxing master is particularly fitted to deal with. Interference is justifiable if the Taxing Officer clearly acted injudiciously. See: HAJI ATHUMANI ISSA VS RWEITAMA MUTATU (Supra). In this case, the learned advocate for the applicant maintained that, merely because instruction fees was charged at TZS 235,011,658.02, then the Taxing Officer taxed the bill at the highest scale in violation of the established principle. In the learned advocate's submissions seemingly, the trial Judge had indicated an inclination that the bill ought to have been 3 taxed at the lowest scale. With respect to the learned advocate for the applicant, I was unable to trace such inclination from the trial court's ruling. For the foregoing reasons, the application is dismissed for not being meritorious. No order as to costs. DATED at DAR ES SALAM this 20th day of MAY, 2022. Judge 20/5/2022 Court: Ruling is delivered in the presence of Ms. Mazula learned advocate for the respondent. Judge 20/5/2022 4