Applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for delay, having applied for the ruling copy in a timely manner and acted diligently throughout. Delay in obtaining the copy justified extension of time.
Order 55(3) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2015, prohibits inclusion of fees for attending taxation in the body of the bill of costs, but allows fees for preparing/drawing the bill. Since item five included both, the Taxing Officer erred in taxing the full amount. The court revised the amount to reflect only preparation fees, reducing the taxed amount for item five to TZS 250,000/=.
The applicant's delay was not inordinate as it resulted from a bona fide mistake in procedure, and the time spent prosecuting the appeal is excludable. The affidavit's contested paragraphs were admissible as they were based on information from the applicant and related to judicially noticeable facts. Sufficient cause for extension of time was established.
Illegality pleaded in the affidavit constitutes sufficient cause for extension of time to file reference against the taxing officer's decision, and the respondent's submissions on delay were disregarded due to lack of supporting affidavit and focus on factual rather than legal issues.
The High Court dismissed an application to extend time for filing a reference against a taxing officer’s decision, finding no sufficient cause for the delay.
The Applicant failed to provide evidence that the Taxing Officer erred in awarding costs or violated principles of taxation; there was no duplication of disbursements or improper calculation of instruction fees; the application lacked merit and was dismissed.
The High Court upheld taxation of costs based on the value of a loan agreement in arbitration-related proceedings and dismissed the reference with costs.