Yusuph Michael Balenga (Administrator of the Estate of the Late Adam Michael Balenga) v John Kimori, Adam Balenga

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA TAXATION CAUSE NO. 000020228 OF 2025 YUSUPH MICHAEL BALENGA (ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE ADAM MICHAEL BALENGA) .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF VERSUS JOHN KIMORI .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT ADAM BALENGA .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT RULING MUSAROCHE, DR The Applicant’s application in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 17171/2025, was withdrawn with costs before Honourable Judge. Kamana. Following that decision, the applicant filed the present application seeking taxation of the costs awarded, claiming a total amount of TZS. 1,240,000/= and cost for prosecuting this taxation. During the hearing, the applicant was represented by Mr. Ally Zaid, learned counsel, while the respondent was represented appeared in person. The Applicant’s bill of costs supported under the Advocate Remuneration Order, GN. No. 263/2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Order"). Submitting in support of the application, Mr. Zaid stated that the bill of costs comprised four (4) items. The first item relates to instruction fees, for which he claimed TZS 1,000,000/= pursuant to Item 1(m)(ii) of the Eleventh Schedule to the Order. Under item 2, the Applicant claimed attendance fees amounting to TZS. 200,000/=, contending that on each of the date of the Page. 1 hearing, counsel spent more than 15 minutes in court. This claim was made under Item 23(a) of the Eighth Schedule of the Order. In respect of disbursement, he claims a total of TZS. 40,000/= as fees for filling counter affidavit. Lastly, he sought fees for prosecuting this taxation under Order 55 (3) leaving the assessment to the court discretion to asses a reasonable amount. In reply, the Respondent opposed the application on the ground that the amount claimed was excessive. He challenged the instruction fees, arguing that there was the same was no opposed as it was disposed on preliminaries. He prayed the same to be taxed of. With regard to attendance fees, he disputed the time spent, contending that the hearing did not exceed 15 minutes, and proposed that the fees be taxed at TZS. 50,000/=. With regard for disbursements, he argued that the same is excessive and suggest the same be taxed at TZS. 20,000/=. As for fees related to the prosecution of the taxation, he argued that since one-sixth of the whole bill is disallowed, the Court should invoke the provision of Order 48. In rejoinder, the Applicant’s Advocate submitted that the bill is proper and Order 48 referred by the Respondent to be invoked by this court is misplaced. He maintained that the bill should be taxed as presented. After considering the submissions from both parties, the issue for determination is whether the total amount of TZS. 1,240,000/= claimed is justifiable. To begin with instruction fees claimed under item 1 (m) (ii) of the Eleventh Schedule to the Order. I find that the claim of TZS. 1,000,000/= is in accordance with the prescribed scale under the law as the original application was opposed. Consequently, I tax them at a tune of TZS. 1,000,000/=. With respect to attendance fees, I find that the Applicant’s advocate duly informed the Court of the date and duration of the appearance. However, the claim of TZS. 100,000/= for a single appearance is excessive and unrealistic, considering that the application was withdrawn at the initial stages. In line with the provisions of Item 23(a) of the Eighth Schedule, I tax the attendance fees at TZS. 50,000/=. Regarding disbursements, the Applicant claimed TZS. 40,000/= for filing a counter affidavit. Upon reviewing court fees Rules I found that the proper fees for filing counter affidavit are TZS. 20,000/=. Accordingly, I tax the disbursements at TZS. 20,000/=. On the claim for fees Page. 2 to prosecute this taxation, although the Applicant left the amount to the Court’s discretion, Order 55(3) of the Order entitles him to such fees. The argument by the 1st Respondent that the court should invoke order 48 as one-sixth of the bill is disallowed is irrelevant. I assess the same at TZS. 500,000/=, being a reasonable amount incurred in the prosecution of this bill. In conclusion, the bill of costs is taxed at a total of TZS. 1,570,000/=. It is so taxed. J.S. MUSAROCHE TAXING OFFICER 31.08.2026 Dated at MWANZA this 31st of August 2026 . J. S MUSAROCHE TAXING OFFICER Page. 3