saad sadiki vs efc tanzania microfinance bank limited 2 others 2023 tzhclandd 16419 25 april 2023

saad sadiki vs efc tanzania microfinance bank limited 2 others 2023 tzhclandd 16419 25 april 2023

More than one-sixth of the bill of costs was disallowed, and as per Order 48 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the applicant was not entitled to costs of taxation; the application was dismissed for want of merit.

Citation
saad sadiki vs efc tanzania microfinance bank limited 2 others 2023 tzhclandd 16419 25 april 2023
Parties
Applicant: Saad Sadiki; 1st Respondent: EFC Tanzania Microfinance Bank Limited; 2nd Respondent: Majembe Auction Mart Limited; 3rd Respondent: Maulid Ngaiwa Juma
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
25 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Reference / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
application dismissed without costs
Legal Topics
Bill of Costs, Taxation, Preliminary Objection, Advocates Remuneration
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Costs Taxation Land Law Bill of Costs Taxation Preliminary Objection Advocates Remuneration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saad Sadiki

Applicant

EFC Tanzania Microfinance Bank Limited

1st Respondent

Majembe Auction Mart Limited

2nd Respondent

Maulid Ngaiwa Juma

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reference / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application contravenes Order 48 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2015
  2. 2 Whether the affidavit in support of the application contains grounds supporting the prayers
  3. 3 Whether more than one-sixth of the bill of costs was disallowed and its legal consequence

Ratio Decidendi

More than one-sixth of the bill of costs was disallowed, and as per Order 48 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the applicant was not entitled to costs of taxation; the application was dismissed for want of merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed without costs

Orders

  • Decision of the Taxing Master quashed and set aside
  • Applicant not entitled to costs of taxation