20070910 TZHC Dar es Salaam

t ,,1 , IN.THE HIGH COUR1~ QF 1:'ANZANIA •(COlVIMERCI/i1L-Df\/iSi'oNj'- ·. ,, =_ AT DAR ES SALAA1V1 ~ I . 1 . .. , 1:. I'" . ., i COMM.ERC1AL'CASE'NO. 950F 2005 UNION ·oF .TANZANIA LOCAL 011· COMPANIES ... ~:: .................. ~ ..... : .......... PLAINTIFi:· I~ ! !. . VERSUS • • !•'. TANZANIA ASSOCIATION OF OIL 1 MARKETING COMPANIES LIMITED ... 18 T DEFENL.-\]\fT ' SGS TANZANIA SUPERINTENDENCE COMPANY LIMITED ......................... >.. 2ND DEFENL.-\NT --- I . ' .I f • • . ; Date of final sub1nission August 6, 2007. ' _Date of ruling Septernber 10, 2007 . ,11 ,,, .t·•. 7·. , J• ' ~· .... ; . •; ··•- t' ·, 1 ' ' ' t ,r l : i 1 . " , ;~jasiri,. J; ' · Thi.s is an. ·application. for extension of tin1c to file .a ,Bill of Costs. The application vvas brought under • I 1 ' . ' I ' :i.Qrde,r: . ~LI~I : Rule, .4 [i · . I ' fI . and_·1 •~ectiqn 95. p~ the I . .I. ' '. . I ., Civil· . .. ', lI . jI ., I· I I' . , ' • , , :jProce~ure ~ct Cap 33[R.E.~002] and was suppccted ·by t t· . • • .• ·~the:affidavit of Arnour s;· Khamis, Advocate.I I • .1 ••. i •It ·.. . ' . 1•·1' • '. -.·. ·•·t .,•- -i. -1 I I ...I ' • .I I I •·, ; . ,I I I I j I· , I • I ' ..• , I. I I :1 I I ,j:,•; I I ,.J' ........ ··-- ·•· i I i ,: . I .. ' I,. ·. I , , .I· ·!" ' ' '! t·• ·I'. ,I .J·. I •I 1· 'I I' ' • , f!on ·Jµne· . 12, 2006 the .Applicant was.. granted • , I '. • ~ • ; ' • • ' I • • • leave/ to withd1--aw the . suif and"' the· Res·pondent · \Vas·· 1 ~ . or4c?red to pay ~costs of. the suit. I-towever .the ·Bili '.iof Costs was ·n.ot filed :by>a.p:plic?J~t.·.unUI:,..;M:ay .;~CO,?-; A'c6dr.ctiii"J. 5 . thei H '! . . .' . 1 · :t~i I·.. I· aff:icl~~it li·1v.1'r.'.' Kthkiis,.' AdJ,Jbat~· 1-iis ': . . .. , • • 1 . I firrp.:i~pv~d: ~rqm Plot. No.2f Ocean Road to: Plot Nc.31 I ,, • - ' I ', ' ' ' ' Ruh~h<;:la ! Street. In the course of shifting offices the file ·1 ' .• ' ' ' ' ' vvaJ,fmisP,lace1. :The missing file v,as found 'in 1\/[ay 1 ., d~;.:. 209,~:::,. : ~- I I· 'I I ., ,;,,· -~-- ' ' '~·. . '' ' _:J ' ) f • • • i; ' ' ~. ' . ' J )\!Is.;J{i:c<;ithi Advocate. for tl;le l<espondenf state6 in ·I ! , '., .. , . ' , . . .. I ,I 'I'' .. I ' ' he~; ~?unter_ affid~vit, th4t IYJr. '. KJ;iapiis as ·-~ Iofficer of . 'I :1 ' I I i '' 1 .: :: ',' i j ,j I i. '' I !I 1 'I' ; I thei itcoi.irtt l'.,'kne~ an'd: ~o-C1yght 1to · have : known the . <! ·! . · f, :, ; . I . : ,, · ;I : .. '•I ' ' l ' • 'I " ' ! ,: .j· ; i1npottanc:e·.:of I. I· _; ,. ,· court documents and the rnisplacern :·nt ~ ! • ' ! . I I ·:1 .i ~:. • i · I .. J, 1 · • . · . of,, 1,: ·??ur~lfi~e f?r alrrJ.ost t,e:q m9nths did not c;o:i;istitute s·u{h~~e.t}t':te?tsqn ' for exte'nslon br time: :· ' ' J. i: i '." . '; ".; ! :;· ]:,:; .:··_, ·: .~ :;, Tf1.·e. &J~licant was repr.esep.ted by Nuhu ;Advocate ,j ' • ' ' ' ' ,l, ·i ... ·, . •I ' ' ·: Tri~: :n/J:e. \ :~esp6ndent f wa,s represented , 'by . J,/[r :· .r · .'\ ; . j'•.'1 . I I• I . '' l •k . Ndibaletria advocate. '; ; , .,., : .:.f : l·i •. ;; 'ii.:,'. :. i:: ,.i,.j : ;:· : I :' i: : i ; I .i' i I : ' ''.. I' , 'I' 'I\· · ·1• :- ' • 1· :.1 . , . : !. . · . i i ·. · 1 . · <~-1r.iNJiibal~ma advoc~te strongly qpposed! the· ' ·:I ·,.;,; ..:· .. ;:,. ;. :· ' :) . . '"I· I l ·.- ~ ••. ,, ·•,:-. ,._. :; . •• I I. : I I lpplication'.. -.:;, .r:i... •. i ti, ' :· ~~ . • 1'~ ~ . . ~-. .. ,. • ,u ~t • . ". . :·-·-~- 1' .·1· .I 2 '' I I . I I 1 • ·, .. _I I . I I · I··· . I· - .... 1 ·t I According t(J Ivir. l'{ciibttlema Advocate application for tb.e Bi11 of costs is regulated by Rli.:.e 21 of Part III of the Schedule ·under the Law· of Limi··ation Act cap 89 [R.E.2002]. The applicatioL for ~xtens on of -j, thne was -:filed in (~ourt in May· 2007 :.u1.d the or-.~ er of if , :,t,,I,. lf ~,l the court ~as. rnade on_ June 12, :~006. It i~~ novv ,!' • I('. ' . ' al1:1ost -;11 n;iorith:;~ Tl:-i-e; application ,vas tjiade :_1nder section·!14(1) of the .La~ JtLibitation }\ct. 1 i Section: 14 of the Lavv of Limitation Act pro 1ides i ' . ' that-~ any,_ application - for e:xtension of time should l I ' • • • ? . ' I I • • I adduce: sufficient reasons. The applicant has failed to ' cl~ so. According to the Counsel for the Responde .: Lt the ' q.elay J wa·s caused · by · recklessness and lack c i due I , , I . , I , · I . diligence.·Nq efforis w·ere:1ma'de to peruse t4e:cou:rt file. icc~~~ibk ·tb boun~ei t~e lcbu~t js. nof ~•·. pla,:e for testing' probabihties: The purpose of limitation lS to end litigation. I I :. 1. ' ' ' Counsel for the· Respondent further subn1itted ' .I that ' if the application does not fall under . part III of . of the Lav, of Limitation Act, there wo1..1ld Je no ' I Rule -21 · • I • ' ' I I I,• ' need'. ., , I the, application. for ;extension of tfme~ tiled by for; 1 I " ,. ' ! '\ ·1·1cant . :; t'h·e l-ipp . ·:I I ·•. 3 I • ' ·counsel f1)r the Re~pondent EUbtiiitted·t:~·.at a Bill··- o{ Costs should "be made. within 60 days citinr: the case . ~ . of- Tanzania Harbours Authority· V Moh!:tmed R~-- .Mohamed.· Civil Appeal! :N)J.8({··. of· :1 §89(ur:repo:rted). vvhere the case of Silas Simba V Editor Mf.:~:.r(yakazi Newspapers, application for Bill of Costs Vlas (iled 2j'ter ·· one year· and v1as dismissed. Counsel for the Respondent also cited tLe case of · Samson Gobba ·v Charles Kingango GoJ.. ba 1990 TLR ,133 and statedl.tha'.t· there was no s·uffi,~-ient a.11.d I · I ' · · I ·· reasonable grounds tb · support · the ·aJ ~Jlication. Counsel' for the Respondent also cited th. case of ' · Inspector. Sadik and other-s :v Gerald N>:ya ·-i 997 •: .J •· t I \ , :: I • • ·. · TLR 290 . which also deals with sufficient gro1_ .ids. . . Mr. Ndibalerria learned Counsel for the R, span.dent submitted that the Applicant has failed to sh'ovv sufficierit reasons.: I ,· .A.cc'ording to the Counsel for the Res Gndent a 1 ... delay of eleven months 1s unreason,..:,.ble and 4 • 1::_i. • ·.1: .-;: .. constituted rec:idessness and negligen,~e on Iht: pare oi the Applicant. ~· Mr. Nuhu -Counsel for the applicant p1. . up ·ft s1:iirited fight. in support of .his application. Ac ..:ordin.g to him a Bill of Costs is not ctn application envh:: agecl in part tII. of Rule 21 in the sGhedule to the ,limitci don act i I I .J • 1971 _: It is: a factual ~tatement of s~rvices rendeted and disbursement rnade. Counsel cited X:uloba on iudicial Hints of Civil Procedure. Counsel rlso cited i\t:falila J (as h_e th~n was) irt Ma.so"iele General A.ge:·Lcies ·v A.[ri.can Inland Ch·urch of Ta112ania [195'.·'.~H "r.l::!B 193;: ., ';a: bil;l of costs is· not!hing, more than a tc.bulated '· I · costs :i_-ncutred by a party in the conduct of the c ·:.se o.nd uJhich he seeks to be rein1bursed bJ:;;' the other ··arty. It : is not the entitlen1ent that may be· claimed in the 0ody of a suit." Therefore according to Counsel for the A; plica:nt there;is, no tilne lirnit for filing a bill ·:)f costs. j . I I , I ' i ' I I I ; . ... r: .,; ' ..- '.. . f '. .._ ,,, .. . I .-_{ +.·: .. , 1' .~·.r / ' ·}l,p.· _.,. .. :, ! '}:,'.!i'' r,: , ;,: '.l' ' • «f . The Advocates Remuneration and Ta::ation of . .·-' .'( I .. Costs Rules 1991 are silent on this point. I1.':r. Nuhu . ' further argued that even·if it is as?._umed tha!. a Bill of ' ',i ,, ·. ·; t Costs is an application, the limitati_on perioc vvill faJl · under Part III rule· 20 -of the schGdule· of the Lavv of I,,• ,. ' . Limitation Act. u·nder th~ ·said. rule , the 1:•eriocl · of limitation is 12 yeu.rs. Counsel for the Applicant also contended 1.hat the costs were a result of a court order. Counsel further subn1itted th2~t if the. co1J; t ,Nas to rule- that the limitation period was 60 days ,-:,ufficient ' . . I reas'ons haye been provided in vie\V of the Applicant's • -relocation frorn one oiiice to another ::~nd the misplacement of files which occurred. Co"L1.11ser also I '1 submitted that the case of Tanzania Harbours Authority was not a Court of .App(:::al decisio1. but the decision of a ta.xing master not binding to tl is court. The dec;ision of Silas Simba cited th~:reiri 1s distinguishable frorr1: this case as the delay was 5 I . I ' I . years, whereas there is only ·a ·g n1onths delL')' in this application. 1_' the subrnission:-; rnade by Couns-~ls, and t -- e lavv applicable. I find it ver_y interestipg that the CounseJ for the I applicant after having -filed an applicaticn for ' extension , ofI time. to file a. bill . of cos Ls can I simultaneously argue in court -that the lin~itation period is 12 years citing the prqvisions of Rule 20 Part • III I of,the Third Schedule to the La\V of Lin1ita··ion Act . ' [R.E.2002]. Having said that it 1s · my finding t.:·,at tbie 1i1nitation ,period is 60' days as. pro,ided unde1 section 1 I i ' • • 21 of; P.arttrn of the Sch.edtlle to the Limitk.tion Act<. I ! • / ' . According to KJ AIYAR's Judicial Diction: sy {13 th -i Edition) application is defined as uLder: "A request made orally· or in writing to a. co 1: rf'. I _would aJso like to mention in passint that 1n l'!it1asoleie' G-eneraJ .Agencies 17 African Inland I ; i . , Church of Ta·,nzania 1994 TLR 193 the defin:~EJn of a i:1·~- -'--c,. ·.--,-':-''---:'---:-:-:-::~-----·-· ... __ ........ . .... .. a •.•. ».. f,J •. •·"r\1 ' ,.if t~; t>.~t· ..: . Ii.:~ '\j... ~ . ~ ... l _15l·;~1·,. ~.. -~/ . :~ u. ' :; :1'.'.·,, ·_ ·Bill of Costs i:;vas provided in order IO sho ;,,r that a claim for loss cf profits cannot _simply be mad;:· in a bill. of cqsts .. . -The main issue to cons1der 111 this application is whether sufficient· reasons have been pro .'ided to 1 justify the presentation of a bill .Jf costs 11 months after the: order for costs -vvas 1nade. The appL .:_:ation is \; made under section 14(1) of the Law of Limitntion act. I :} .:".i!' '. f:.' \. It is a requirement under the reasonable and sufficient cause has to be said provif ion that. shown. l.c·· Tald:ng into con:sideration the totaEty ·of 1,·' ·I., ,,_· , I ,. • I ,. I ,.· I circumstances) it ·1s my v1evv that reloc; · tion bv Counsel from one building to anc ther did · n . L justify such a delay. Counsel for the applicant arg,_1ed" that :. ' 1 the. delay was only 9 rnonths in view of the 60 days which the appJicant had to file a bill of costs · lfter the court order dated April 12, 2006. 1 1 an;i of the v1~w that this does not rnake a I difference as the delay; of 9 rr.tonths 1s :Jso not justifiable. Litigation has to be put to an end. i 1. 8 •{,/fi_;c___ . -. ,. ,· 1· it \,Vill therefore oe \vrong Ior r.:1c Lo co:i'.1.(1.t.: ~i:\-: a delay. In vie·w of that the application _for ext.c ;1sion of time to file a bill of _costs 1S hereby dismisf::. ed vvith costs. Sauda· Mjasiri t,,' Judge (J, September -8, 2007. Ruling delivered 1n l· Chambers this :10 th Jay of_ September 2007 in the· presence of i'·Ar. Nuhu A.-~,vocate and in.the·absence of l\1r. Ndibalema Advocate. l I. ·; I Sauda Mjasiri Ju<;:lge September 10, 200't; I , I . I I I i · 1,820 words 9