19970131 TZCA Dar es Salaam2

• • IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR.•..ES ___..._ ...,..._.._. -... ...,,_ SALA.AM ....... , ~ CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 29 OF 1996 ~- B:ST,JEEN VIP ENGINE3RING'AND MARKETING LTD. ••••••••• APPLICANT ~ C AND SAID SALIM BAKHRESSA N.JD CO. LTD, •••••••••• REBPONDENT . \ R U ~L I N G _ , , , , - · - - ~ - - - - .. v-.,. .. -,... _ 1 •• LjJ}iliDA, .§_DR-CA/~AXING .MA..STErt: . Th:l:.s, is a Bill of Costs arising from Civil Application No. 29/1996. Tl1e applic~tton was for a review of a judgment in Civil Appeal No. 39/1994 , which application was Struck out for being incompetent at the request of \he Applicant. ·;:- rv1r. Ch.andoo, • • t . ,, who advocated for the Respondent in this Bill of Costs is claiming TShs. ~5,000 1 000/= as instructions fees. In defending the amount Hr. Chandoo said he prepared himself by reading the whole proceed:i.ngs of the High Court and Court of Appeal. He, also said he and his colleague advocate Mr. Kisusi had to look into various authorities,, ' additional volume of work. He submitted that there was an He concluded . ti by.saying that the amount is reasonable in view of what he had stated . above • Dr. Tenga, Learned Counsel for the Applicant assisted by Mrs. t, • Rwebangira submitted that there was nothing which necessitated Mr. Chandoo to put all input as he alleged. Further, he submitted that the procee- dings was quite short. The matter was Struck out on an application I. made by the applicant who moved the Court to do so. So the amount claimed by Mr. Chandoo was on the high side. He submitted TShs. 5,000/= as instructions fees would be proper. He however doesnt object other items. • •.•• /2 , ~ 2 J JA:.f ( " Paragraph 9 (2) of the 1:I'axc.tion of Costs - Third Schedule pr:ovides:- ~rtf; - ·The fee to be allowed for instructions to appeal ; or to oppose an appeal -shall be such as the •~~·,.. taxin~ officer shall consider reasonable, having regard to the amount involved in the appec:1.l, its nature, importa1ice c:md difficulty, the interest· of the parties the other cosb to be allowed, , the general conduct of the proceedings, the fund or person to bear the costs and all other relevant circumstances~ In the instant case the ap~lication W!:\S Struck out owing to its incompetence. And ,the Court was moved by the Applicant ax1d not the Respondent. So there is nothing difficulty or complicated. \ As regards to Mro Chandoo's submission that he had to read the '\, proceedings of both the High Court and Coqrt of Appeal, this submission has merit. I quite agree with him on this. But that alone doesnot entittle him T.Shs. 15,00o',OOO/=. Dr. Tenga on the otherhnnd suggested Sh. 5, 000/=. That figure to my view i,s on the low side. Taking all into c_onsideration I am of tho view th2.t Sh. 20, 000/= as instructions fees is reasonable. I award the sdme. luid as item 2 to 15 .are not disputed, the se'J11e are tgxed as :presented. In all therefor0, I award Sh., 66, 000/= as Costs. It is so taxed., - I I DATED at DAR ES S,-,11-ii,M this 31st day of January, I:. ~ I/\~ij\ ~>->-11v'-/~-~y . / ,. (,B. M. LU ·.· 7i) . T/iJUN FFICER ;;:::~22/1/97 original •.