19941205 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The application was for an injunction, not a plaint or a suit for a liquidated sum. There was no legally stated liquidated claim in the application, so the 3% fee schedule does not apply. The taxing officer exercised discretion under section 11 to award Shs. 50,000 as instruction fees and taxed other items as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19941205 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Applicant: Sapridasen; Respondent: National Bank of Commerce
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 5 December 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Civil Application / Taxation of Costs After Ex Parte Injunction Order
- Outcome
- Bill of costs taxed and allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Injunctions, Remuneration of Advocates
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sapridasen
Applicant
National Bank of Commerce
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Taxation of Costs After Ex Parte Injunction Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to 3% of the value of the subject matter as costs in a miscellaneous application for injunction
- 2 Proper basis for taxation of costs in an injunction application
Ratio Decidendi
The application was for an injunction, not a plaint or a suit for a liquidated sum. There was no legally stated liquidated claim in the application, so the 3% fee schedule does not apply. The taxing officer exercised discretion under section 11 to award Shs. 50,000 as instruction fees and taxed other items as presented.
Court Disposition
Bill of costs taxed and allowed in part
Orders
- Instruction fees awarded at Shs. 50,000
- Other items taxed as presented
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
r~ISC~LLfJiEOUS CIVI! CASE N0.,76/.93 :::fJIP,IllffiD SAPRJJ>ASEN ·o o o o. • o • •••• 4 • • • o. ~., ,.tu'FLIC.::1-TT VS N}JC,1 r,•, o o ~ s • o 1 e o • ~ o o I o t 1 s , o ~ o o • o s o o o o o o .RE ~JPOIID:Ji:~T :,:lULii~G This bill o:f cost i.e.::. h::..:.,;rri 0-:__, ·•fo for tho rca.oon t:\c,t the 1~os_pondont, . being 0, C0iapr-J1Y nc.o so:::vocl Dy u roe;.: :,r~J:ocl T.1c.,il No. 5173 throt.l[;h its P. o. Bo~ 1863 Dar es SnlCuJ;1, Tllc,t w::-,::; on 16th }'Tr··~.:i.'Y;r, 19940 Hoitho:;: the Mnnngillr; Director of tho lbtioni1 :Or:J.'llc if z.o~.".::1crco not his aconts o:i.· servants n.ppo- ared on 25th Novonbcr, -1~94 1-;hcn tl:o tm:ntion uns done, ':Hien tho cOUl't wn.s satisfied tJ.1n,t oe.rvioo wns 11ro}?crly done, 't~tion proccodotl e.x.p~te. Ivi;r• Ny~o in his subu!osion said t11o;t tho bill of cost is t~od. to soole ao Shs 1, 731,,~.8/z:: is tho "3$ of tho vclv.0 of tho su.bjoct ua.tttcr, tlm.t is Shs 57,701,602/= hcinc tho vnlu0 of the suit• This is in n.coordinoc to tho f:..dvocc.tos :lcnuno.r.:i.tion c.nd To.xo.tion of costs Rules, Govol'i.lont Notice Noa 515 of 1991. The rest of tho i terns, that is :frou i t0r.1s no, 1 to i ton 7 n:ro snid so.id ~o be in the bear producing two 1~occi::)ts for photocopies Shs 840/= a.nd Shs. 4, 000/.,. fm• typing. Tho roco;i.j_)ts c~,o noxlcod o]:hihits .'l n.nd B respectively. Ho endcdhis subr1iBsion "'::ly rog_u0stinc thr,t ·tho bill of cost b o truced n.s pr~•cc1. 0 This hill of cost order out of o. ch['):1b01, np:.;ilic2.tiori filed l)y tho applicant sookinc orders tho.ti. "(c) The honouro.blo court mo,.y 'be ploa.sorl to issue o.n ordc:i., of injuotion to rcstr,:.in, tho responclont, its C£;Cnts [§1.d/ or scrvcJ'lts fi:-on c;:-;rryinG out n fil:'Oposcd solo. if the _property of tho .'.lpplicc.nt. •••••••_,o•c•/2 t ~ 1 '\· ,. ' 2 ~ (b) Costs of t!1is ::,yplica.tion b.:,• :p.1.·ovidod for. ( c) J..n,y othm' order( s) the~ t tho hon out ::-.blo court nay doom fit. 11 At the encl, the application was Ci,;0J1tod o.nd on po.go two, oost parar:- * • \ f grnph of tho typod l'tlling, the honom:'nblo Juc'lt;o, M0,cko,nj~t J. hrul this to s~:- • "I DJ:l sc.tisfied fror.i tho a.bovc cviclcnoo, that tho a.pplico.nt ho,s Givan stt.fficion t onuse why tho in2uction shovJ.cl issue. .,' In tho rostu t, the npplioa.tic;.1 is nllowed nnd tho :reloafs sought ri·o c;r-nntodo 11 i So whn,t wcs before tr.o court w0,s an injuction to restrain o.nd. not a -plaint. Then uhc..t is the "'.:io..sis of this 3% costs dononded. I o.D.. sorry to so::,; tha.t tho o:i:'cl s1.iJmissions QI'e not VG"Y useful to r.10 for fae len.rnod nd.voonto never uontioncd tho schedule of tho Jules which ho bQPc.d his • + 3% of tho va.luo olcincd. 1 rho subject i.li'.,tkr ho tdkod o.bcut in the cl'fida.vit is found in pcrno:,...'.1ph No. 3 of tho said affid,wit uhich 110 sr,,idi ,,: Further that tho com:po,ny o,:focsv.,id. Socurccl froa tho respondent c. lonn which hns ~~focn. toGG,tllor with intoI'ost. to Shs, 57,701,602/i= ns nt 15th June, 1992." Tho basis of this a.:ff'ido.vit was not by itself 2, :plc,int of o;ny kind. ·It wns just nn ovid.onoe mo that tho cou:rt could soc o, sonco in tho cho.i--nbor . np:plioation so tl;w,t n.n injuction could be .3rc.ntod., of which, 112.s finnJ.ly i3Tnntod. . ' On porusnl of the Govo:rraont Notice No.515 of 1991, Scheclulo VIII sootion 8 (dovt collection) it is allowod in srn:ir.10.:i.•y suits 3% of tho vduc of tho subject no.tt'"'"- of tho suit in the Iligh Court o.nd Subordinc,to cou.rts; nnd in Sohcdulo IX i.o. Socio foes for contentious prooeodinGs for liquidctecl sun in c;:>:i.3in:-l rnt.'1. }.,ppcllnto jurisdictic.m, over 3 ,Jillion, 3% 1?~-"ovidod that whore the dofcnc.l:,nt doos not dispute tho cle,i1:i ond docs not file dcfonoo, the sodo .of f 0taS should be two thil'ds cf tho foGs abovo. • • • • • o' • •· • ,/3 ·• . 3 Fron tho o,lJov-c quotc,ticns, I h~-:,vc fr,Uocl to ca,llod thiG ,:iisoolln.nious Civil .fi.pplicdi,:::1 o. cODtonticns procooc'j.n:;s for liquig.atod. sw.1 o.s there ,io.s no 1~on1ly any liqnicl.-· tod. sUi:i stc-.tod .U. Le c.]_,licnti-:.m. Tho c..l)plication wn.s to issue 2.11 o:}dor of injunotion thio its agents ::JJ.aj 01~ sc::..~vt:nts fron 0ro:·r3ring cut a, i):~~oposod s,,lo of -';ho prop,::,.>ty of t'.10 appliccnt. On the uh: 1 e thcrcforo, I l .::-.vc failed to @'o.nt Hen Noo I in tho 110,y it is prcs0nttod, 1 bo.sing it on tho 31~ of t:i.i.c oonay nllc.::;od to l1r,vo bo,m clo.incd by tho respo- ndent, the N:::,i;_ima.J. 1J:::nk, of ComDorcoo IIwovor, th~,t docs not non that tho learned advoc~tc did not do sorac work, ho did smo work, r,10,kinc research n,.>1d tho chnnbor GJ.Jpliontion /Jlld tho nffick.vit f.row which tho a.i,:i,,lioo.,tion w0,s grantodo I woulcl tho:coforo lnvoi,,:o section 11 of tho .t'..clvoco.tos' Rcmuno- ra.tion /Jlld To.;xctimn of costs G.N. 515. of 1991 ancl a.we.rd Shs. 50, 000/,s; in i ton No. I ns inst:...'uctions iio prose cut..., uhilo cll other i teas ~1~0 to.xod. o.s pl'cscntod. Thorcfm.'o tho ul::.olo b:i.11 of cost :i.s t2.Xod at Shs. 60,590/== only• .!\ .·'. -\ A. R,,' 'H[')'lcnto· J:2rno:i i>ml.TlJTY ~~:,c rnrr..1.t.n. 5/ 12/ 199<c -- .. L. n. rnru.1cnto, SDR-HC rt:-. Hyo.ngc fox doc:coc holdos. Konbn ...... COURT: Tho r1.1lin;1 of the co1JJ.~t is J:>~tld. in tho absence of the jud.u,mont 9-cbtat'., {l\\l- --:-:j - ,,,.. n. · l,1~ortfo -~ SIWIOR DEPUTY REGIS'ffil..R . *g71zA994 I I