Abdulatifu Salum vs Saada Mohamed [1991] TZHC 11 (1 August 1991)


Kaijage, D/R:. This ruling is subsequent to the judgment delivered by this court (Mapigano) on 14/6/90 in which the appellant, judgment debtor is these proceedings, was condemned to pay costs. In appeal, the judgment debtor was represented by Mr Massati, learned advocate, and the respondent/decree holder was represented by Mr G Kessaria.
On 2/2/91 when the case came up for taxation, the judgment debtor for no apparent reason did not put up appearance. To this, Mr Kessaria was allowed proceed ex-parte. H
Mr Kessaria has filed a bill of costs entailing a total of 46 items. In his submission he has contended that items 2-20 are according to scale and that they should be taxed as presented.
The sum of 50,000/= has been charged against item No. 1, which is for instructions to oppose the appeal. It is Mr I Kessaria's submission that the charged amount is justified taking into account

A the fact that the grounds of appeal involved the interpretation of various sections of the Rent Restriction Act, Stamp Duty Act, and s.8 of the Registration of Documents Ordinance, cap 117. Mr Kessaria has tendered a list of authorities which he relied on, and which in these proceedings has been marked "A".
B I have had an advantage of going through the record of appeal and I have nothing to fault Mr Kessaria's contention that, the appeal involve the interpretation of various provisions under the Rent Restriction Act and the Contract Ordinance. This, however, is not to suggest that the appeal itself involved complex issues of law. C Similarly, I am not suggesting that Mr Kessaria did absolutely nothing in preparation of, and in arguing the appeal. Having regard to the nature of the appeal, the amount involved, and the party who will bear the costs, I am of the considered view that the sum of 28,000/= (twenty eight thousand) is reasonable and justifiable under the D circumstances. Thus, the sum of 22,000/= is taxed off on this item.
The amounts charges on items No. 22-47 are not supported by any receipt. This, by implication I have taken note of the fact that the decree holder is, and was a resident of Morogoro Region.
E Therefore, there is no doubt that he, the decree holder, used to travel to and from Morogoro as and when required by the court. What is rather problematic in this aspect, is that exact amount spent as bus fare. Indeed, it is common knowledge that buses to and from Morogoro are running almost every day until late hours of the day. I F have found no justification in Mr Kessaria's submission warranting the award of the amount charged as lodging and boarding. At the same time, one cannot ignore the possibility of a decree holder having spent some nights in Dar es Salaam. On the basis of these brief observations, I am prepared to tax items 22-47 at 50% of the amount charged G against each item.
Finally, I tax the entire bill at 34,425/50 and 27,100/= taxed off.
H Order accordingly.


▲ To the top