THE REGISTERED BOARD VRS ADAM SHABANI 222 edited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB- REGISTRY OF MANYARA AT BABATI CIVIL REFERENCE NO. 25083 OF 2024 (Arising from Taxation Cause No. 22996 before Resident Magistrates' Court of Manyara originating from Land Appeal No. 4200 of 2024, Extended Jurisdiction at Manyara) THE REGISTERED BOARD OF TRUSTEE OF MASJID AL - AZHAL & MADRASAT AL HAYATIL ISLAMIYA.....................................................APPLICANT VERSUS ADAM SHABANI (Administrator of the Estate of the deceased SHABANI RAJABU).................................................. RESPONDENT RULING 10th & 15th October, 2024 KAMUZORA, J. The applicant has preferred the instant application under Order 7(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2015 GN No. 263 of 2015, (hereinafter referred to as Orders) seeking for this court to hear and determine this application arising from taxation cause No. 22996 of 2022 before the resident magistrate's court of Manyara at Babati. Briefly, the Page 1 of 6 records show that the applicant instituted Land appeal No. 4200 of 2024 appeal before this court challenging the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal in Land Appeal No 14 of 2022. The said appeal was assigned to the resident magistrate with extended jurisdiction and the decision was in favour of the applicant with the order for costs. Following an order for costs, the applicant instituted taxation cause before the high court but it was returned by the Deputy Registrar with the remark that it was filed in a wrong registry. The applicant then instituted another taxation cause before the Resident magistrate court which was registered as Taxation cause No. 22996 of 2024. It is in record that, on 17th September, 2024 the resident magistrate's court in the absence of parties marked the application as withdrawn. The applicant was displeased with such order thus, brought this reference seeking for this court to be pleased to revise the order marking the taxation cause as withdrawn. Upon going through the chamber application, affidavits in support of application as well as annexures thereto, this court called upon the counsel for the applicant to address on the competency of the application. Addressing this court, the Mr. Mbugha, learned advocate for the applicant acknowledged that taxation cause No. 22996 of 2024 was filed before Page 2 of 6 Resident Magistrate Court of Manyara but it originated from Land Appeal No. 4200 of 2024 which was filed before the High but determined by the magistrate with extended jurisdiction. Referring Rule 6 of the Judicature and Application of Laws Act, (Transfer and Management of Cases Assigned to Magistrate with Extended Jurisdiction) Rules of 2022, the learned Advocate submitted that the Deputy Registrar has powers and mandate to determine bill of costs if it arises from the cases filed before the High Court. He admitted that, filing the bill of costs before the resident magistrate court was improper for it originated from an appeal filed before the high court and determined by magistrate with extended jurisdiction. He however argued that, despite the improprieties, the resident magistrate erred by deciding to withdraw the application in the absence of the parties denying them the opportunity to address the court. He insisted that the said application was filed before the resident magistrate court following the directives of the deputy registrar who initially returned the application filed before the high court for the reason that it was filed in the wrong registry as reflected at paragraph 6 of the affidavit and annexures thereto. The applicant's counsel was of the view that, despite the incompetency of the application, this court has revisional powers to direct the file to be Page 3 of 6 remitted to the resident magistrate court for the parties to address the court on the competency of the application. He therefore urged this court to remit the matter before the resident magistrate court for the parties to make proper prayer to withdraw the application with leave to refile. Having considered the arguments by the learned advocate for the applicant and the record before me, I would first like to address the provisions of the law governing transfer and management of cases filed before the High court, the Judicature and Application of Laws Act, (Transfer and Management of Cases Assigned to Magistrate with Extended Jurisdiction) Rules of 2022. Rule 6 which was cited by the advocate for the applicant prescribes the functions of the registrar and which include among others, taxation of bill of costs. Rule 13 of the above rules governs applications and place of filing applications arising from matters transferred to a magistrate with extended jurisdiction. "13.-(1) Application arising from matters transferred to a magistrate, whether filed when the matter transferred is pending or after its determination, shall be filed before the High Court. (2) Upon admission of the application filed under subrule (1), the Judge in-charge shall issue a transfer order of an application which shall be substantially in Form C set out in the First Schedule to these Rules. Page 4 of 6 (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of these Rules and subject to the provisions of any other law, an application for taxation of bill of costs and execution of matters arising in exercise of the extendedjurisdiction shall be heard by the Registrar. (4) Nothing in this rule shall prevent the magistrate to determine and enforce payment of costs ordered to be paid during the pendency of the proceedings." The above cited provision is very clear as it mentions the High court as the registry to which an application arising from matters assigned to magistrate with extended jurisdiction should be filed. The above rule also gives powers for determination of bill of costs arising from matters assigned to magistrate with extended jurisdiction to the registrar of the high court. In the matter at hand, since the application for bill of costs was arising from land appeal which was assigned to magistrate with extended jurisdiction, it is without doubt that, the proper registry for filing taxation of bill of costs was the High court as per sub-rule (1), and the deputy registrar was a proper taxing officer to deal with the taxation for bill of costs as per sub-rule (3). Thus, in the first place, the application for bill of costs which this reference is premised was wrongly filed before the resident magistrate court. That being the case, the application for bill of costs was wrongly filed before the Page 5 of 6 resident magistrate court which had no jurisdiction to entertain applications arising from matters determined by magistrate with extended jurisdiction. Having found that the resident magistrate court had no jurisdiction over the matter, the whole proceedings and orders of the resident magistrate court are hereby nullified. However, I find no reason to remit the proceedings to the resident magistrate court as prayed for by the counsel for the applicant because it will be improper to remit the proceedings to the court with no jurisdiction to make an order. Since the records shows that before filing the application at the resident magistrate court, the applicant filed on time an application for taxation of bill of costs to the high court which was wrongly returned by the deputy registrar, I find it appropriate to grant leave for the applicant to file bill of costs before the high court as so directed by Rule 13 of the Judicature and Application of Laws Act, (Transfer and Management of Cases Assigned to Magistrate with Extended Jurisdiction) Rules of 2022 within 14 days from the date of this ruling. In the circumstance, I make no order as to costs. DATED at BABATI this 15th day of October 2024. WH D. C. KAMUZORA JUDGE I III ri’ Page 6 of 6