19890731 TZCA Dar es Salaam

~ I ;' ',, ;, IN 'FlIE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZ.AHIA AT DAR ES SALJW:'I . CIVIL APPLICATION N0.14 OF 1988 YAITAYA MOIIl:JillDi o a o • • • • • ,0 0 0 e O t: ti,.- A?PLICANT - versus DAR ES SJJ.,/1.;'\M CITf COUNCIL:• o • -• t •• , • RESPONDENT RULING In this bill filed and argued before me by the applicant himself, 'there are a total m.m1ber of 13 items totalling a sum of Shs.25f150/=-. Mr. Mbuna who appeared for tn.e respondent did:'.:not seek to contest items 2 - 8 and 11 and 12. I note however that item 11 is receip-'lied only for a sum of 100/= and not 200/= as appeal"S in the bill. In the course of hearing the applicant admitted this error and conceded that his claim should have been limited to ~mly. 100/=• .i\0 such e;-..cept for item 11, I see no basis in di.sa;lowing the u.11contested i terns. I will accordingly tax i te;ns 2 - 8 a.nd 12 as presented, and ite:-,1 11 iFJ taxed at Shs.100/= only and the other 100/c disallowed• Item 1 is p:reserited for a sum of ~hso20,000/=• The applicant says this su.m is for preparing the application.. Ee u:rged that he cpent considerable ti:::lc in p:.:cparing himself for -t;;~e application; ru:.c.l notably that he hacJ_ to walk arow.1d and conou1·;~ a number of people ·for advice on how best to prepare and argue the application. Admi·~tcclly he is a layman. Hr., l!TIJtum on the other hand w2-,s of the view tm.t while the appJ.icc'..nt must have spent time for the alleged pv.rpo:::o, but the sum claimed is on tb.e high side and not commensurate with ·the work done, more so when it is not indicatccl c::mctly ho..r much time was spent. I agree. 'l1ii,1ly, the applicant hacl. -~o go around ancl oeclc i'egal advice but 20,000/.. is to my mind alco, on the high side• -- . . 2 According to Mr. Mbuna 1,000/= would have be0t1 ad.equate for the purpose. I do not agree. In my considered view, I think 12 1000/~ ~- is reasonable~ a::.1d. I would accordingly allou this svrJ and tax off Under _i tern 9 tho applicant is clai:ning a. ,total sura of 550/= which is 50% of nll tl1e i tei:lE · except i ten 1 ru1d the disbursei:'le.i.,t iter.1s (11, 12 and 13) .. Mr., Hbuna hue clmllcngcd the jus-'Gificatio;:1 ' for this claim a:rguing in particuln.r th2:[; tl1is kil1d of claim ia not supported by the Rules. li.ccording to him 3 t:.10re is nothing in the Court of Appeal Rules upon which this claim could l?e ~stained., :, agree. In the scale to the Third Schedule of the Court of J1,ppeaJ. Rules, there is no specific provision for thi::. kind. of claim. If the applicant had cngc1&cd counsel, it is Gy considered view th.a:[; he could have been covc1~cd by the provisions of Rule 9(4) of the T'.aird Schedule to the Court of J..ppcn.l Rules read. toget}.1Gr with Rule 2 of the Adv:ocn:!;es' Reraunerc.tion and Ta.7,.a:'i;ion of cos:ts (./i..-:iendr.1en t') Ru.1 es 1962 ( GN 89/62) • Rt.1.l os 9( 4) of the Court of iippcal Rules 1979 readc as follows:- 11 9(4) O'l;h.er costs shall, r.m.bjoct ·co the prov1.s1ons of po.rne;raph 10, 11 and 12 9 bo 2;wo..rded in accordru:.ce with the sc<1le act out bclcw or, in res:)ect of any 1:1at·ccr for w~:ich no provision . is mMe in those scalcs 2 in G.Ccorct?.nce t.i th ·i;he · ;cal c applicable in tlle Tiigh .Co~'.I'·t'." ( Empha.sin_ mine). And Rule 2 of the Advocates Remunerntion end To..:;:D..tion of coGts (li.raenclment) Rule 1962 provides in part ac follow-pi- 11 2. Rulo 12 of tho i:'..dvoec,tes' Rcmuncr2.:l;ion 2.nd Tr:.xation of Cost::; Rules is lrnreby aiiiGnclcd b°IJ dcloti11g therc:fit'Oo paragraph (1) ancl substituting therefor the following:- ( 1 ) The scnles of ch,::.r.s-es contd:1od in the schedule to thcoe RuleG :::lmll in res-poet of service::: roml0rotJ. on :md o.ftcr the first dny of ,lpril, 1962, be increnf:l ed by fS.ftt, per c e,ii:,i save that:- . (a) ••••••••• c••·······~····~~~·~·•~ {b)•••••••••••••••••~•o••~c~o•••o•• (Emphasi □ mine). I I • 3 J:n View of the foregoing I will disallow the whole of this i tern. Itew 13 is on disbursewents for transport cmrges at the rntc of 400/= per trip. In a.11 he claios 3200/s,, r'Ir, 1-Iburm hno clmllcnt;ed tl1e i'.Uthenticity of some of the :r;-ccoipts arguing for inntt111cc that one is dnted 19/8/89, another 19/4/88 when the application hr,d not cv011 bean filed, r.md t}rn o-cl1cr of 17/3/89 h[!,r::r· nor,10 2.l ~lier;-:,,tioi.1n on it,, I agre0 the,t E:ODe< c.f the receipts .;1C;y or 11~y not be genuine. Of' courso there r.v1.y h..1,ve hoon ju.ct n slip of the pen wl1cn writing ~1:;.1d issui~ t.tie receipts; Better still, incurred czpences in -~:ravelling to and fron t:rn Court. Given tho distn.ncc between hfo home area (Ma.nzeso) and the Court,,. I ar.:i . ~-~ . d .i.,..., . ., - ··~.o 400/ t . . 11 I will 1.0 It\~*-"? '..11'\£t1.TfJO ~,~ = por rip is rc2.no;.1a J e. J • .,,., c2. lilOfil.c there :& ~:n this.. -i~i;o~] ·• presented. ,: \' r~·n ·, ' : the onu. J'.'GGult; tl~i.G bill ic taxed at Sho.16,500/=. . ,.,, .;,£ Delivered thiG 31st clay of July, 1989., ~ ( J .II. lGdfiiFE) T(vCJIW W~~~W,.. - 31/7/1989.