SAEED ISLAM SAEED SCANNED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM REFERENCE NO. 9518 OF 2024 (Arising from the ruling of Taxing Master in Taxation Cause No. 16 of2023 delivered on 16th October 2023 by Hon. Lung'wecha Chairman) SAEED ISLAM SAEED........................................................... APPLICANT VERSUS QUEEN LIGHTON as an administratrix of the estate of the late ABUBAKAR ADAM KONDO............................ RESPONDENT RULING 13th & 27th August, 2024 L. HEMED, !■ The instant matter has been preferred under order 7(1) of the Advocates' Remuneration Order, GN. No. 264 of 2015. It is a reference against the ruling of the Taxing Officer of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Kibaha in Taxation Cause No. 16 of 2023 delivered on 16th October 2023. The application which has been taken at the instance of Mrindoko Law Chamber, is supported by the affidavit of the Applicant one SAEED ISLAM SAEED. The Respondent QUEEN LIGHTON SEKANYAGWA i contested the application through her counter affidavit which was presented for filing on 06th June 2024. The background pertaining to the instant reference is such that, the Applicant herein had previously lodged an application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of the Ward Tribunal for Picha ya Ndege. The said Application which was registered as Application No. 164 of 2021 was dismissed with costs on 1st December 2022 for want of merit. The respondent herein opted to file the Bill of costs vide Mise. Application No. 16 of 2023 claiming the total costs of TZS 9,308,000/=. After scrutiny of the said Bill of Costs, the Taxing Officer ended up awarding the amount of TZS. 4,059,000/= as total costs. The amount awarded, made the Applicant unhappy with it. Basically, the Applicant is challenging the amount of TZS 3,000,000/= taxed out of TZS 7,000,000/= as instruction fees. In the submissions made by Mr. Rajab Mrindoko, learned advocate, the amount awarded for instruction fees was extremely excessive in the circumstance and nature of the matter. Mr. Mrindoko asserted that, in determining the quantum of the costs under instruction fees, the primary consideration by the taxing master is the prescribed scale under the Advocates Remuneration Orders, GN No. 2 263 of 2015 and a number of factors like the amount involved, its nature, importance and difficulties, the interests of the parties, general conduct of the proceedings and other relevant circumstances. He fortified his arguments with the decision of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in Eco Bank (T) Limited vs A.A. Trans Limited and 3 others, Civil Appeal No. 399 of 2020. The Applicant's argument is that the amount of TZS 3,000,000/= awarded to the Respondent as instruction fees was made without considering the scale under the Advocate Remuneration Order (supra). In his view, the instruction fees for conducting application are chargeable in accordance with order 40(2) and paragraph l(m) of the Eleventh Schedule to the Advocates Remuneration Order, which is TZS 1,000,000/=. He ended up praying that the amount for instruction fees be reduced to TZS 800,000/=. The Respondent who was duly represented by Mr. Mlyambelele Ng'weli, learned advocate ought to have filed reply submission by 5th August 2024. However, for the reasons best known to her and her advocate, they could not file it. This ruling therefore, is based on the only submissions made by the Applicant's advocate. 3 As aforesaid, in the instant matter, the Applicant is challenging the amount of TZS 3,000,000/= awarded as instruction fees on the ground that it was excessively taxed. In order to know whether or not the instruction fees was taxed excessively, we need to re-visit item l(m) of the Eleventh schedule to the Advocates Remuneration Order, GN No. 263 of 2015 which is the governing law on instruction fees. It provides thus: ”1. Instruction Fees: The fee for instructions in the suit shall be as prescribed in these orders: (m) For applications, notice of motion or chamber applications (including appeals from taxation) (i) un-opposed 500,000/= (ii) opposed 1,000,000/=.zz Before the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Kibaha, Application No. 164 of 2021, was contested before the ruling was delivered on 1st December 2022, dismissing it with costs. This being the case, instruction fees that ought to have been charged is as provided under item l(m) (ii) of the Eleventh Schedule to the Advocates Remuneration Order (supra) which was supposed to be not more or less than TZS 1,000,000/=. In the Bill of Costs, the taxing officer taxed the instruction fees at TZS 3,000,000/=. I 4 am at one with Mr. Mrindoko that such amount is contrary to the prescribed scale as it exceeded the amount required to be paid as instruction fees in an opposed application. In that regard, I find merit in the application and I proceed to make the following orders: - 1. Application is granted; 2. The amount of TZS 3,000,000/= awarded as instruction fees is varied and substituted with the amount of TZS 1,000,000/=; 3. The other amounts awarded by the taxing officer remain intact; 4. The new total amount which the Respondent is entitled to be paid as costs is TZS 2,059,000/=; and 5. Each party to bear its own costs. Order accordingly. 5