Tanzania Case Law

final DARSHANA DEVI Tanzilii

Court

TANZLII

The court found that the taxing officer acted on correct principles in taxing off transport costs due to lack of evidence of medical necessity, but erred in merging advocate's transport and attendance fees and in taxing off costs for attending the taxation cause. The instruction fee was properly taxed off due to lack of evidentiary support in the applicant's affidavit. The court exercised its discretion to increase the total awarded costs to Tshs. 654,000/=.

Source excerpt

• Taxation of costs
• Advocates' fees
• Discretion of taxing officer
• Contingency fees
• Transport costs
• Instruction fees

Read case analysis

masaka mussa vs rogers andrew lumenyela and two others 2022 tzhc 14362 27 october 2022

Court

TZHC

The High Court set aside a taxing officer’s ruling, holding that taxation should not proceed during a pending appeal and that instruction fees were wrongly based on the decretal sum.

• Jurisdiction during appeal
• Apportionment of costs
• Instruction fees
• Contingency fees
• Taxation-of-costs
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

mkono company advocate a firm vs j w ladwa 1977 ltd 2000 tzhccomd 14 21 july 2000

Court

TZHCCOMD

The agreement between the plaintiff and defendant was champertous, involving a contingent fee for contentious proceedings, and is thus illegal and unenforceable under Tanzanian law, specifically violating section 23 of the Law of Contract Ordinance and section 59 of the Advocates Ordinance. The doctrines of maintenance and champerty apply in Tanzania, and the relevant professional conduct rules do not override statutory prohibitions.

Source excerpt

• Champerty
• Maintenance
• Contingency fees
• Public policy
• Advocate's remuneration
• Enforceability of illegal contracts

Read case analysis

mkono and company advocate a firm vs jw ladwa 1977 2000 tzhccomd 4 3 april 2000

Court

TZHCCOMD

The agreement between the parties was champertous, involving a contingent fee for litigation, and thus illegal and unenforceable under Tanzanian law, violating S. 23 of the Law of Contracts Ordinance and S. 59 of the Advocates Ordinance. The doctrines of maintenance and champerty apply in Tanzania, and the Advocate's Remuneration Rules do not override substantive law.

Source excerpt

• Champerty
• Maintenance
• Contingency fees
• Debt collection
• Public policy
• Advocate's remuneration

Read case analysis