20161222 TZHC Dar es Salaam

20161222 TZHC Dar es Salaam

The Taxing Officer erred in treating certain disbursements (attendance, printing, photocopying) as part of instruction fees and in pegging instruction fees at the minimum percentage despite finding the case was neither simple nor complex. The court adjusted the instruction fees to 6.5% of the principal sums and allowed the disbursements as claimed, except where insufficient detail was provided.

Citation
20161222 TZHC Dar es Salaam
Parties
Applicant/decree Holder: Rustamali Abdallah Fazal; Applicant/decree Holder: Mohamed Fayaz Rustamali; Applicant/decree Holder: Simba Pipeline Products; Respondent/judgment Debtor: Pangea Minerals Limited
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
22 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Application (reference From Taxation) / Ruling on Reference Against Taxation Decision
Outcome
Reference allowed in part
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Instruction Fees, Disbursements, Principles of Judicial Discretion in Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Costs and Taxation Taxation of Costs Instruction Fees Disbursements Principles of Judicial Discretion in Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rustamali Abdallah Fazal

Applicant/decree Holder

Mohamed Fayaz Rustamali

Applicant/decree Holder

Simba Pipeline Products

Applicant/decree Holder

Pangea Minerals Limited

Respondent/judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Commercial Application (reference From Taxation) / Ruling on Reference Against Taxation Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Officer erred in law and fact in taxing the bill of costs at the minimum sum and in treating certain disbursements as part of instruction fees
  2. 2 Whether the Taxing Officer properly exercised discretion in determining instruction fees and other costs
  3. 3 Whether specific items (attendance, printing, photocopying) should be allowed as separate from instruction fees

Ratio Decidendi

The Taxing Officer erred in treating certain disbursements (attendance, printing, photocopying) as part of instruction fees and in pegging instruction fees at the minimum percentage despite finding the case was neither simple nor complex. The court adjusted the instruction fees to 6.5% of the principal sums and allowed the disbursements as claimed, except where insufficient detail was provided.

Court Disposition

Reference allowed in part

Orders

  • Instruction fee on the main suit set at Tshs. 6,239,170 (6.5% of principal sum)
  • Instruction fee on the counterclaim set at Tshs. 9,211,174.38 (6.5% of principal sum)