19981228 TZHC Arusha

IN 'l'to.ll lllGH· COlJR.T OF T.ANZAlf.U ·. AT ARUSIIA. . .-·~ ·', _::., •·_·. ··Mrsc.·. g;v.i:~-. APPLICATION (R~. )N0.90/97 ( c/F'".Ame~ded bill ·of Cost No. 5/97 tro::in:/ oi:ri~er I s· decision at 3/6/97) Till!l l30ARD' OF Tl\UST3ES OFO •••• APPLICANT · TJ'j!.NZANIA NATIONAL PARKS 0 VRS }DrIIOD KIHOMOGORO(~DVQCA!_EL• ••• ,RESPONDlliNT RULilW HKWAWA,J •. I ·,: :In .,the instant natter, wllicl, ~ias been ins ti tut ed. in thi G cour-t . .. : ( ·:. ' by w·a.y_. . I of Reference, . TJIJ J3CWID OF TRu'"ST:1l-:-U OF T.AlfZJJi.TJ..A. lT.A.TlOliI.L PARKS, hereinafter to be .referred to 'as t'.1e Applicant end -in ot:.1er occ.a.s.s.ions by thei;r ?,.Cronyr.1 T.Al'fli..Pli, seek to set aside or quash the decision of the T~in~-Master of Jµne 3, i997 in tt.e :aill of_. Cost~I lfo.5 of 1997 whereupoil . • . '1-ttirJ:OD . . K_::iIOI;OGOHO, . • hereinafter . to be ref.f!rre~ •. · • • ·• . 1· to ai:s t:1e Resp9~d.ent;' w~s fimx:ded a sum of T. shs. 40,100,_900/t. a~ - hi~ .brief •• ' • • • . •.. • • •• I fees in a RiGh Cot~t Civil' suit, naoely, Civil Case }{o~ 9 9:f 1994 at . . . . . -. \°' .... Arusha. . \ ·· I The ·R~f'erence ·i:s supported by an affidavit de.pone~ by lir.Ben i· • Lobulu, the lear;1ul counsel for th"e Applicant, who on ll>el:all of the . -1 . Applicant has raised severa.l grou-11.ds of conplaint a. 6ainst t::..? decision of tl"ie-· Ta.J::i:nt; Mast~:r;. Tb.e ,.;rounds, if I t1ay r0prod_1.1.c0 them for-case of refGYOH;e are ae fo],lows:- . i'(a) The detcrnination of th~ point w:1etl1er the· RJ~poncT~nt was ac'tin_:_;- as Advoca<te for his er,1ployer was, a' na.t·te:'r'. for a j1.,~dc;e bf the High Cou:.ct. The Taxing O!:fi.c~r, t!1eref ?ro, erred in en tertaininG · it. · t•·· '• . . •. ( b) The,bill of costs was not enforceable as there vas no High ·court Order for costs as required ··by' section 60 ·of t:1e A:l'vocat0s t.-Ord:i.nance (CcJ.p.341) and was. prei3cntod in violati?n of sections 53 and 54 of ti1e 4"dvocq.te·s: Ordinance. ( c) At all J:1.a.tcrial tiL1es, and in vic~r of the evidenc0 · tendered . a.nci of· t:10- full set. o.f .~ir_cunstances 1 there was' no clien:t . advooate relationship between the Applioa.rit,:and -the :Respondent. (d) At all naterial times~ 'th~ Res:p~nd~ had been the, usi~G _. AP,plica.nt' s -{clie~tts) :tiIJa -for whic!l he wa~ o.lrea.dy fully re~uneratetl and tb.e 'I'a:x:int3". Offiqor should have holcl ·.tl~t th@_ Respi:mclmi. t was all alon,~~ pcrforr,1int3' .his dutico c1s a , c9,r1Jorii). tion SeQreta;ry. · / ••• , •• 2 (e) The .'T~:dti~ Officer errea in h lding that Applicant iook a· risk for tru ting the Repp<mdent. \ (f) The Ta.x:;i.ng Officer erred in aiarding costs . ., at all ol' on the scale Ile did wl1en there was no defertce to the sttlt, no preparations before trial were r;iade · since. no trial was contemplated at all, The ta.2:in.:.; ·officer erred in holding that there was any comple:x:i. ty in the matter or that ..neeo- tiations were "protracted" and erred in not · taking into consideration that the ResponclGnt '~acl in. fact been rcr.1l:n0rated alreadJ:. . -·~-. ·--~. (h) T:10 Taxine5 Officar er:rcd in not holdin,:,; that co1.n1ter-clair,1s are not entertained in :Bill of Costs. These counter-clai □s have· ·relevance a in th0 essessment of _costs and/or·in deciding whether the Bill of costs should be e~1tcrtain0d in tho first place. It is not in·elevant to·mention t!.1at the Appli:cant's oatter was t ~ advoca tod upon by Hr• LJ bulu from lo bulu & Co. Advoca tcs w:ioroas the Respondent was reprosent;d by 1-'ir. Maro from Maro & _Co Advocates. The riatter prina faoio appe~s quite siJ:11)10, but in r_eality is involving and n_ot free from difficulty. In ny view the central issue/the cravaL~on of tb.0 case is ~-,1.>.etl1or or not there was a client/ advocate relat~onsl ip 'bEltween tl1e parties~ 0 Mr. Lobulu :·.as i:r.. :us WTi tten subr.ri.ssion addressed the court in substance to tl,e effect t~:at at the matG1·ial period th? Resy)ndent was emp4oyed b,V TAl~.aPJ:.. ( the ·acronym of tLe pro.f:lent Applfcant) full tiBe an~ salaried Corporation Secrcta:cy. It is. Mr. :Wbul11 1 s main pl~nk of his argument . l that ~t no_ tioo cli(1. t1_1e parties:_·contci?la.te th~ adio.cate~c1ient relationship botwccn th~nselves·,. , , It is also his contention t~1at the .. . - Presumption of o/\.":"ocatc/client is .f,.rrthcr n0,_:,ated the Respondent has nover been paid a "retainer" by jI t:10 fact that ANAEA and when ha acted in ·mgh Court Civil Case No.9 of 1994 (ARUSHA ·sub-Rocistry) 1 he was not briefec.l as.an-advocate but as a fulltime~ fully and. fully rer:nmera.tccl· ooployec 'of the Applicant., In rebuttal it was sulloi tted· by :,x-Haro, if I mp,,Y put it in a nutshell, to the effect that when tl1e Respondent was· dealinc with civil case No. \ 9 of .1994 he eraployed. his profossional skil:;Ls as an .. ; ... advocate .within the neani~g of Sec~ion J ( 2). cif ~h,~ ,4.tivocate ts . . . ' '•. . • .~!L .' . Ordinance - Cap .341. It has been .further a.:..·;ued on behalf of the Respondent that as- ;is-•(,rvidc:mt --·and: rcfloctod by the Applicant's letter to tho !Ion. C1lief . .Justice- '(Ref .lfoeTl'T.P/CP7/40 of 19 t~1e March :t ~?~Ji~i}( ''!I", ;,gs; ~-.... , ... -•~:';t'•'l"R;~\fti:((?·· "3/:\. '; 't/>;' . ,:... .)l;'i,),~:fil"'g:,: - , 3 ' .·.. :,. - ::\:'41'~!~}~}~;.?~:>.. ~. . · , . .. .. . . 1992) tha'n~·~p~hde~t\s ~ollment as ari advooa~~ wa:S ~orted by the .AP.t!l~can-t be6~use ~ow ha· could deal with both ;9qntontions and non- .. . . contention's..··Jiia.tto:ts •. .. . ... In: qtherwords, bofore .his. ~erµ-ollment he could . : only- deal with· non-contentions .matters and that. ~~AP.A,. ~d. to engage t~ se~11es of .an adv? 7a_t~ to hana~~ i tf c_o~~~i~~tjs-":matt~1,s/business. I ·~~Y;~,-:.~<:>tmlf an.d d:i,spa.ssion:atoly conside1ed ~he illur,ti.nating and refreshing ar,r_;1.1~.1011ts of both learned ~ounse1.· I must houever, say that a:part f1·on th0ir submissions the matter · s not free from difficulty•.· I vont1....re to say that thoir. ar Qlffi0ll t 4. ~ M oi.:wly b . ove:rlook~d or pi~~od down· so6e i~portan~ consid~rf1=.o~s•. I: ..is conoon ,ground that tho Respondent was employed· by' f.A!UPA be:for0 his enrollment az an advocate •. As ric,1tly • . argued, ' • . -by Mr,.: 1!~0, learned I •·• 1 1 counsel for the'Hcs~Jondont, there is no doubt that ·by becominc an advocate the Ros:~ondont acquired/o~tairtod . ". . .. ' . an addi tio;~l qu.a.lification. The suit claio in civil case No. ~ of 1994 was for an a.r.101..mt w~.1ich is over T.shs. 12 billion and the suit ar.~ainst T.All.APA ·was filed by tw9 .adv.ocates, nancly Messrs Maira and m.ra.r.ibo. There can not be the sli4ltest dc1.~:Jt. that, havinf; regard to tho afore.e,uini::;, ·tho Re~pondent was briof~d by his eraployer· ( 1l1iu:I...\PA) to ds.il;l ~ii tJ{ t:1e case as an advoc::~tc and not otherwise. I a.r.i fortified· in· -thin view by TAU.APA' S let-tel' to ~he chief' Justice, . us alr0ady m~1}ti-0nc<l, oar lier on, th~t TAJ:T.APll J':acl seen tl1<3 need, to.berepresented.by·a,n 2.d,;-06ate in all court caac:_;. It is. in . t!lO ir;:i.t'' of the aforGGOil1G t}Ja t I a.I!1 unable to fault t;.c Ta.xini.:; officer in hi.s Ruling lorhoro he. fovnd and h0ld that aftGr t:~o Ilespondcnt I s er.rollr:~cnt as an advoca..te. thorc emerged an. advocatc-clionl. rolatio'"sliip between the t_rro Jl.opending on the nature. of <lut.-Los tho Respon<lcmt was· required to· p_erforr.1. In otherwords, . in• all non-contentions. . o;ittors· he . acted, as a C.orporation Secretary and an aclvocate in court r.1attcr (cont0ntions) .wh0roby a . higher degree of rirofossionsl accuxacY a.i-1d care had :t9 .be ?:i::orcised. The qoostic~1 i/1at .vases i~ediately t:10reafter· is l!hethor or not as a res1.:l t of the Respondent's erifoilment as an advocate he shoula/rnu.st lJo rcrJunerated as an advocate. for w~tevar he <loes as an advocate. i , I .oust col'l..fo3s that the' aforeisoing.qucstion is .... .. . . . . . . I fror.1 easy and \rar is not free fror.1 di.fficul ty. This is where. the pa.r1;ies· aro at issue. The R~~~~ondent, if' I uridoretood hin well, he does ndt dispu.to b0int3 an employee of Tli1'7l.:PA for a fi:x:ed annual salary. H4' however, su~ stantially contenl'~s t~at the said fixed a.1111ual sala.Iiy boi.11;~ paid to hio by his employer does· no,i covor tl~o services he , .. J, renrlorin:;· to ·i-··/4 . ~ ~ . W . . , . - - " -- -~----------- . . . -- advocate. It iiJ fU1,thar hls· a.rgum~n-ff.that by _being enrolled as a.n advocate he automatica.11.y'f'alis within the ambi ts of Secti~il 55 (2) o:f the Advocates_' 0rdina.fi6e? nameiy liable for professional no 0·1igence in respect of' his oliarit 1 s business. (Seo: LIMBZRtTO KAFUZI & OTRERS V. YO!Il11FU NZA.rilA (1960) E;A. 14 and CIIANPION MO':rOR SP~~ IIrD. V,; PHAD~ ·AlID OTIImS ( 1969) .E~A.- 42) From th.'a fore[.uing, it is the Respondont 1 s case that ho should · be p_aid;, by· liis enIJlo?er oi ther tb.rouG11 a rcmunera tion .agreq.:Jcn t as . ' ~ pro~~ed under sections . . 53 and 54 of t:1:J.o Advocates. _Orc:linanco ( Cap. 341) or by w_ay of taxation i.mdor sebtion 52 of t210 said; Ordµi_a.nce. As rightly_ pointed ont "uy Mr. Maro, in his ,r.ri tton supmasio:n, it was , ' and sti-11 _is for TAlf.APA to choose how t110 Responq.c~t ,_is·· to 1.Jc rer:11.m- ' eratod_l~:r. tho additional rosponslbili tics as be-t'lffOn eoctions 53 and 54 on the on<t hru.1(l and Section 52 on tl1Ci othel:'. ,q.a.p.d.. In the 'instant case there was no remuneration 'a@'cement ~1.ence the Respondent dul,:• rlolivored his bill of costs to' TA.UAP.A. who dishonoured it, pronpting the forncr to ,file· ~s ~Ill of costs for taxation to' the Ta::dng Maste~ under section ,52 ofJ.,he ~d.ina11ce. It is on this regard that _I ·do no.t accede to IIr. lob :urs ~J.1cnt that ta:x:ation could not proceed in the absence of an order of t:1e llijl Court. If find it J?ertinent to r.1ention at this stage that· u.ndor rule 9 of the Atlvocates 1 Ror:nmeration nnrl Taxation of costs Ilul0s G.N. No. 515 of 1991 and section 62 of Cap. 341 an advocate and tl1e person cta.rc;eo.1Jlo with the bill can file an application for on order of ta:x:etion without an· order of t'10 High Court. I Jiave, however, noted that in the provisions of r1.-:J.0 9 of the Rules t1.1e words "upon the annlications ol the advocate or" "have been inadve- rtently omittGc1. I venturo, howcv·er, to say that the oi:1isrJic:1 is inadvertent boc2.t:.:Jo the na.rginal not'3s to Rule 9 state and. I quote:- 11 Taxation o:t costs as botwoen advocate and cliGnt, on application of 'either partzr. 11 .·. It follows tl1at it was intended to reproduce 'the provisions of rulo 9 of tho R1.1lcs which were revoked by ·a.N. 515 · cif 1991 i.e The r .. Advocate ReIJUneration and Taxation•of Costs Rules 19,20 - 1962. Rule 9 of the revoked r1.ll.os states as follows:- >: .... ·, •..••.. /5 ....... - ·.·- .,_..•.. ···•·· ·······.·.-.'"·'.. ".· .>:,i}(~f~¼!f:· : . .·, .. - ·,•-:;:~{ . '-•. '·. ·, - .,5 1'9• ·In·aU costs the_Ta.;ing.Officer may tax c~sts~~~- ootween Advocate and· client without MY' order for .. .. ; order for ::the purposes upon. the a,PpliC!:l,tion a£ the advocate or upo~ the application 6:f the client on a 1-rri;tten unde::-tal_:in.; to pay any balnnco which the Taxing Officer may certify." It is the light of the foregoing t]1a, t I find that this is a fit case !or reading t:.ie omitted words into t\e provisi0ns of Rule 9 of G.N.. No. 515 of 1991. This "purposive" approach in the interpre~~ion of statate was eiven ben~diction by the court of Appeal of Tanzania in the case of. JOSEPII SINDD WAf{IOBA v. STEPIIBJ.1' MA.SATU mJ3SIIlA AND 'fiIE ATTORl-mY Qi].~.· - Civil Appeal lfo~ 52 of 1996 - DSM. ReGistry ( unreported) Ehglish decisions J.ike ·1TOTJJ.:AN V. BARN3r LONDOU BOROUGilT COU1WIL which re- · echoed ( 1978) l ALL ER 1243. The fact t!1 a.t the orirission of the words i.s inadver~1.t ~s fuib.er supported: by t~.1e ].Jl'Ovisions of section 62 of Cap. 341 Yhlch ~nable both the· adva~~te and the person chargeable with the bill to file an I application ·ror ai-i. order of taxation. It follows that t~1e ptovisiom of rule 9 wi t::i.out 'the omitted words leads to absurdity as th y were meant to eave t:i.r,1e and costs of tlle advocate and t:ie clien'-, Tb.is would not be ac'.1ieved if only the client were allowed to til a bill of costs without an order of· the Hif)l Court. It has been argued by Mi-. l<ibulu, learned counsel for t' e Appi. cant, that the Respondent's bill·or costs is time-barred. Il;eS,Pect- 1 fully hasten not to ~ccede to t!J.is··a.rf,'U!ll<mt. I am fortifieid in this 1 view in the li(~1t of the privisions of: .si'ec..t.ion 62 of Cap .. ;tL1-1. The relevant part rcaus as follows:- . t162(2) Provided that (i) - if twe~e months ha.ve e;g;iired from the deli very of the bill 6:r if the bill has beon paid or if a decree, judgment·. or order has been- obta- · ined in a suit for the r~covery of costs covered .. ·.' the:reby, no order shall be ma:a.e .on the applicatio11 on .. the party ~hargeab-le· wi-th.. the biii::exc.ep.t -in spo- oial circtunstances, a..hd :tf an ,0;{'der -i-a made, it may . · · ,. cont.ain such ·ternis ae :re~ds the costs of the ta:x:ation as- the' 1ligh Court nia.y ·tbinlc •ffi. II • Und(The · underscoring:· fa suppliea)~ . lo : •• J,.;. •· ·,• ' . ._.:-: .. . 'i<'}J{;);} ., .i · ~ 6:! . .· It"b~lli' ~10eds t.o .b_o over emphasised tba't it i ,;:'/.~-~.:·.,,. . . . from the a.foregoing provisions,; that any time wi t~in the delivery . of . th~ bill ei~h§lr the advocate or tho .eraon c!J.argeable with it (ell.ant) na..v file a:Jl application for an orde of th.a lli.gh Court tl:ra.t -~; bill bo taxed, It ist therefore, ~c4rrerl as sug130,sted by both. loa.rn<)d counsel in their. ,;p;-i tten'.:. s_1b~saion th~ t th~ ~riod ·within which a. bill of costs 'r:ri.gb.t ,be :e:t.1~d in court 1s not provided for, The provisions of· section 61 of ttle said Ordinance prohibits an advocate ffom ~inging a.n action to reoov,!3r his c~sts untft..11 a r.ionth has cla:ps~d ·from tho date of delivery of his 1)ill. It is, thereforc,.cloar . . that the.provisions of Sections 61', and 62 of cap,341 are i:leant to prot~ct_ clionts acain~t_- thoii' a.dvooat'os in tho former s:~oti.ld ·have adaqua.te tine up to' twelve ( 12) □ontl-1s that,'....... to investigate tho va.J.idi ty and/or reasonablonesi of the bills of costs. prescmtcd · to the!J by their a~voca tcs. Fqr ·the ;casoi:1s c:,-ivon fror.i· t:ie · force,-oinG, I an unable to accede to M.r. Lobulu'·s are;1,tjent that t!1e bUl of costs in question fa time barred. I now turn to thG no.:x:tprir.ie issue, which in my viow is the {sl'a.uamen of thi8 Llattor, name17 whetlwr tl!ere is basio·s for fees for instructions, .· Nr., Lobtilu has put forward a proposition foa t so long as an ·_ad.v~cato cloos not file a de:tonce and does not GO to court at all t'.).13:i:'o :ts no basis for foes for instructions. . T~ ..fOI'.060inc; px-oposi tion was vi[;'Oroualy resisted by H~·,liaro who.. desc~i .. ~ '.bed -it as. 1111 tenable and . danL;crot'!.S to t:10 profession, . . It is. now scttlocl law that tho ta.7..ation of costs :i,s-not a uathoL1atical e.xoroiso, it is entirc1if a natter of_opinion besca. on oxpcrienoe. A cot±t .. ~rill not thE;i:rc.{0;0, intorforo, ·~th_ the a,wa.rd of a ta.xi.i:tg offico:r ~d ·particul~l;·. wllo1·0 !1..0 is ~ officer of ere.at. ox:perionce, ;·.1crcly becau;o ·i ~ ;hinks tho a~d ~onc~l1.0.t too -:._"" . I • hit3h or. too lau: it will. only intol'.'f,crc if it thi~s itho award is • • . I to high 9"F, so lou to a,nount · to ari injustice to one p~ty o_r t:10 o_ther. (~c~: tho d~cision of the. dcf;ct. Court of Appl al. for East Africa in PRJ.IMC11A] 1]? ~1.AINCIIAND IIl'D. AlTD AlWTHER ~- Qu.J.ay SIDV.CC]S OF EAST AFRICA LTD A!;]) O'I1IIERS (n~. ~1972) E.~. _ 3) 161)•... In the ins~a11t natter the suit ae,amst T.AlrAPA wa for a sun of T. shs. 12 billion plus. It is cooeon cround that tho IRospo11d0nt was instrumental in .l..~Y~l?-C .a.n•out-of'-c.oou:rl scttlooent in jtho na·~tcr and tnat riagotiations ·ta:f a settlement took a1nost five ndnths '§r so• It. is thua incor.1pro'.10nsiblo for any ono to sugccst that no 1rox-k was dono particularJ...y 1l::on coopa.rison is oe.clc; botweon what is olcined ( ~ the plaint) . a:-_.u.ins t wha. t was evcd~.:.mlly - a.chioved ( t!1c · terns . , .... /7 },\!/-/~<.-. . . - 7 of.isettleocmt). ' · · :In· the ineta.11t oa.se .tho taxing Master is boirig izzjugnod. for awardirig·T-~slis. 40,000,000/= as brlef:·:·~~es. ,Mr •. Maro ~guas that the . -.. .. . . . the award was' by·:all standards- having ;-e:;:;ard to: the suit: claim--a.nd . ,- ~ork.done whereas Mr~· Tobul4.contend~__t~t the award ia ,not· jt!stif.ied a:na/~r supported by ·mo ~~un-t of worls:1 tl10 timo and tli~ pi~of'ossional ekilli employed by tho Res~nd~nt in ba.ndlina· the matt~~-. < ..... .- Th:e iminediat~· q"Li.0stion wb.ich fails for consid.eratiqn .and do~aion now is whether tho mm.rd of T. shs. ~O><YJO,ooo/r:s_ as brio ' fac-s would 1 be allowed to st~':.nd;· 'Tbis Refor0nco, in r;i,y· considered view,. as I have deoonstratecJ. or- intitiatod in ny analysia in this R line,.· raises I . . importa.nts questions· of law, public policy and social.-oioorrnr:iic. princ.iJ?les which I nust confess t19ke the case not a very easy on?. o uecide. I would have cas!i.ly.' acce_eded to Mr• Naro I s. argurJen e.nt'.. re jectcd Mr. lobulu1s are,-,,uEmt in its entirety had it. not boen fo:r the .... · Respondent 1 s heri:'.liiJlirodical cbaract9r, so to spaak, naruely "t~.,o Corpo- sum ··· · ration Secrete.ryrL":-a.uvocaw db..a.ra..ctcristios. It is cor:inon c;tound i:h at the Rospqnclont was at the material tine the corporation Secretary ~i' TAN~ NA.Tl01'~3, P.tJ1Ia3 (T.All.A.PA) AUD. ':A.3 ENGA.G3D Q~i A. .FIP.D SAT.ABX.,. . . •t· . . . It is also common·, crovnd that subsequent -.to tl1e Respondent r o enroll- , . . . . ·. ~-. . ·, r. . r:1er,it as an advocate; ·T.AlJAPA as the oo.ploJcLon one sido and t:10 Rospondent as t},.~: or.1riloy~e on the other sitlo nci thcr·_ entered :i.nto a To□uneration e.t'..,1:oor.1oni; !!.2.E. did they car.10 out with a known a:rra.ne,,"'Gr.tent. e.s regards the onplo;;-·or I s 10@3,l work -~lric~1 is contentions_ J1.S opposed to non-contentions work.. Ordinarily, an advocate who :.ias e.CJ:'ced in . consideration of q. salary to do. . legal work . of an eoployer w:10 is not an advocate (lfo~lct;al enployer} oiy ac;roc· with such m:i.plo~·e.r to sot off his profit r9cebrcd in respect of contentions _business :frou the opponent.$ of s~h O:nplO';YOr or the co::its paid to hin as tho advocate for e□ployor by tJ_-.irJ. parties, in respect of non-contentionn business against (1) the .·o·al~-? so paid oi payable to hio and (ii) tho reasonable .. -~~figi_:~x;pense.s.· ii.-icl.!lTed by such· enploycr in connexion with suo..11 .Advo~ate-(~d.:~t~ tJ.'~~.:!~i:te~d· c;:rf~uch·salarJr and expense) fvxt!icr to ti1c ~ore~it:iJ .wm.~d ordiric0:'l:i.y have expected as regar<ls the ()11~ ' ' enployer I s le~,l uorlc, tho Advocate to only sot off the costs of ' ' • ~ •~.. • • . • • . • t, • I contentious and11011..:.Contentious work done by hiq. for his:enployor to the e:;ctent · of: hi. s 1;iala.¥.Y ~~~. reasonable o~f ico cxpens~s. In otho.rwords, any ar.1ount .l!/y·whichr the tot2.:1 fOC!S exceed t_h Advoc'ate 1s· salary and of'fico·: 6.'.r.:ponsos mus;t be paid to him by tho e. (So~, Rulos 5( ~) (3) ·( ;li). a.nd: 6(g). of tho Rules pro!.o_asio Conduct and Etiquottb' of t!.1.0 .Tancanyika law Society).· •••••/8 - 8 . Apparently 1h'.Lobulu,: l~a.rnad counsel f'or tho Applicant, f'inds ·.· the .awa.rd of T~:s~~~.40 1.100,000/.. as pr0post0ro~ .or _if i may borrow . hi~ owp.,;e~reesioii II tho s~ of shs.·_40,000,000/= as Advocato's fees is ,'.'staggei-ing'' ahcl one without II lem: tinate basis'.' ( th0 ~phasi« : ; · supJ!lied}. · .. , . .-Mr. 'Maro, loa..rnod counse.l for the Rospondent, countarccl by .'.• desc1:'}bing:the sun as a modest one w'.:lon pi tcd with t~1e amo1..111t of ., • I clair:i 9t. T.shs,•. 12 ·oillfo~ He. thus UI'[;'CS this court to. affirn the reaso¢.ng and decision of the Trucing- Master. He contends t:iat had ~' tho R9_sponden t no.t been careful in ha.11.cllinCT tho oa tter, Ti~/.AP .P. would have paid innonsJly in leisal costs and ancillary o:x::ponses, But, as it transpired T.Alflilili. ended up payinc nothini:;. The ,Ta.xin[.i Master in arrivine; at the award now a.t Jssuo :.~d the followini; to say, wlu.ch I thi:ok in orclcr to appreciata 1i t fv.lly and for caso of rofG:i.'011ce I find it pertinent to reproduc~in c:::;tcnso.;- 11 If ono looks at the instrvctiun .fees it ru,p· t appeal' •·. be on t::o M.Gh side but obvisou.sly not when ta.Icon to- . ~ettcr ui th all other factors er.nmorated ab vo. This .. · · 1s to say, if the suit a.oount is considcr0d couple ; · .. ,with tho }.)rotracted negotiations, .t!1e anotn1 clainod :i . ~P. not all that hig..1. so it is accordint£lY .so tro:ctl, ·For t>..at Da,:tt0r even iten 2 is .. so taxed. II ~s a· general rl'.lo wl::.0re tho d0f0nda11-t dcies not dis utc t~·.o clairrr and. does not file dof once, tho seal? of foes sllofd. be too .:.. . . I t)u.rds of: t:10 instructbr.::fees. (Seo t:,.a pr·oviso to sc~10(lulc TX of G.N. No. 515 of 1$$1). Ln,·PR:1..1,IC.Will'S Caso; ( su;ra) it was :1.cld and I once aG,ain·quoto:- The fa.xo.ticn of costs :is not· a nathe□atical c:;ccrcis.J, 11 it is entirely a raattor o_f opinion based on o:x:pericnco. A Co1.~.-d lr.i.11 not thcroforc, inte:i:-foroi,. with tho award of a· tx::i.n:; 9fficor and particularly where he ls all officer of GI'G~ter 0:x:porience, norely ~acause it thinks t 1 ··.c award is,,somowhat. too )rig.½. or too hiJ.1 low; j.t will only .:interfere if' it thinks the award is so hi;Q.1 or so low as to ar:iount to an injustico-to onG P<D:ty .or the other," • · · . _( tho i.mderscrorinr/cnphasis iaLfiI,plied) In tho prcso11t···casa 1 it is con.'Jon .{Jt'ound that"-tho anount involved was 'l'.shs., 12 billion~ '~ying regard to ,t110 foregoint3' tho ta.:x:ing officer -had .ai.warc.od a.h:)~~~t, as·,.briof faes:, which is. appro:i:ina.toly . . - equival~t to 0;.425f·br tha aui t clain. I venture to say witb. a.11 nodesty an~ all· in oarncst that h:ad -the Rospond<an:t bean not a. salaried poreon wi'th-. the ..A.i1plica.nt •I would havo no cause to raise a.n 0yo brow to the m.rd oa.c..o ·oy t:10 Ta.;zint; Nasto.1.'e Tl~e na~tor. is ;f'urt;.::.or bedevilled by having n;->t b.ocn told what ,wais tho Iloqpondant•s saJ..ary in order to ••••• /9 appr;~r~t~ the corioorn of th0 parties, in this matt~r. . . . . .· . . ·. .. \ '•. . In the liaJit of ~he for~BOing it. can not be s~~d with any degree of oerti tude that tJ-10 ta.x:i.ng officer had. G.X.Grciaed his disorotion judicialy in allo,ri.n0 instruction fee of she. 40,000,(r.(J'/.,, As there was no evidence as to the Respondent 1 s salary and ~ving rot)Ui.d to what ha.d transpirot1. to that parties au.bs0quent to the Respon(lcnt's enrolloent as an aclvocate, I ao inclined to believe that tJ1e award g;i.yen in favour of tho Respondent, ·in the a1)sence of base, ltas surely an arbitrary datcrn:ba.tion of tho fie;ur0. It is on this p:eor.tlso that I an ir.ipelled to sa~r tltat the taxing officer did not o:x:ordiso his discretion judicir.11,y. In the rosuJ.t, ~;:10 award can not be justifiably bo 'Justifiably be a.llowed to sta11tl n:nc1 is, t!1oreforo, set aside. But as I ::.avo been · satisfied that Section 52 of tho Advocat0s 1 • Ordina.nco (oap.341) and Rulo 9 of G• .N. }Io, 515 of. 1991 aro appliabla in. this ria.ttar, I accordingly or<.1.or t:1at tho instruction foe in tho bill of costs be rooi tted to t\o taxin~ officer and the sano be ta.:x:od. auini tio. It night :not fu.lly sorvo tl10 intorosts of justice to loavo tho oa.ttor there. For the avoi!la.nco of doubt it nu.st be pointed out t:~.,,t evidence as to the Rcspon(lont 1 s salary at the na:tarial period oust bo (;ivon., In this case tho sa.no oan be achieved by way of. an affidavit with a view of the 01,pocHc party beinJ t':;'1.Von an opportunity to ro1)ly by ' way of coun tor-aff i(lavi t. i\ In the poc•clinr circunatances of this caso, I confi~$r i~ !roper to ne..ke no or<l.o:r £1.s to costs, but 13hould. any of t~1e p t1os iT1Sil to prose f.or costs, I ru.1 q_ui to preparoc1. to hoar hin in s ~ rosr,oct, It is so ordcro~. J, J • .MJCTA'.TA JUDG.:1l 28/12/98 \ ORDER: The District Rec;istrar to suf.:lr.1ori t~\o parties and :rcatl over to tho□ t:10 Tiulinc;. J .J.MICTA;;A. JUDGE 28/12/98