19881110 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN TH.G HIGH CODH'l' OF TANZANIA AT DAR BS SALAAM . CIVIL CASE NO. 81 OF ~988 .: WILLCHARLES N. TERI •...•.••• ~ •.• PL1INTIFF Versus COOPER MOTOR CO-OP~RATION ~TD •.• ~ RESPONDBNT RUL I NG lviRBMA, Taxing Master I have heard the ebserva\i8ns- of Mr.~.&-i..e. and 1Vlr •. I1Iaira •. It is not iri dispute that the 6ase was rather c6mplicated and theref~re it dewanded for legal ~esearch and the preparation -~f the pleadings before they were filed in cour'i •. I have observ:e_d only one point, and that is whether the judgment debtor who was allowed to file his case in court free of cherge and granted legal aid, should be erdered to pay costs for ihe advocate of the defendant who worr ihe case for his client. M.r.KcailX'i& ha-s claimed in his bill of costs a fee of shs.2_50,000/= in respect of instruction to ·sue. Mr. Maira for the plaintiff· has c~mplained that t,he plaintiffwho-came to cour,.t wit:h")Ut any singli cent cannot be asked t~ pay shs.250,000/~ as it_is not possible for him to pay the money. But Nir.I(cco.t'i(ll) ht,s mantained that it is immateiral.whether nr not the judgment debtor has the ability to pay~ .That it is the duty of the ·, taxing master to tax the bill using his usual discretion as dem~nded by the law. This I agree. I will therefore proceed to tax the bill but the crucial q_uestion is whether the claim of shs.250,000/= on item N•.1 is reasonable in• the nature and circumstances of the case, As Mr. Kesaria has put it in his sub1J1issi.on, the plaint was rejected at early ·stage of the proceeding of the hearing of the suif when a preliminary point was rai's'ed. , This means thaif there were .r;io witnesses involved in this case and therefore the time to be taken to hear the - 2 - witnesses and cross-e~amine was cut short. As the record of the case file shows the sriit commenced on }/5/68 and was adjudged on 9/9/88. Therefore the period taken to finalise the case was quite· short. However, I have formed in mind the time taken by ~r. Kesaria~tb read the various liws - as cited by him, the effort used to prepare and file the written statement of defenc~ an~-fin~lly the argument put by him in Court an~ cons~quently resulted to the rejection of the plaint by the trial Judge. I also concede that the learned trial Judge was aware that the plaintiff was granted legal aid, yet he awarded costs against the plaintiff. In my considered opinion the bill on item lfo_.• 1 claiming for shs.2~0,000/= is rather high and therefore the bill is taxed at shs.40,000/~ ~n -item number one • . This me,ns that the whole is taxed at' shs.51,806/=. I .~ A.d · Mrema T/Ivlaster 10.11.88 Ruling delivered at Dar es dalaam. Mr. Kesaria for J/Creditor - pres~nt. Mr. Maira for J/Debtor - present. I. I'Ii \ ,. . A.c) Mr~ma T/Master 10.11.88