Court name
High Court of Tanzania

E.M.H. Chacha T/a Mwanza Mechanical Engineering  vs Katibu Wa Wilaya Magu & Chama Cha Mapinduzi Magu () [1985] TZHC 17 (13 June 1985);

Law report citations
1983 TLR 344 (TZHC)
Media neutral citation
[1985] TZHC 17
Coram
Lawena, J.

Lawena, D.R. (Taxing Master): This is a taxation of the successful petitioner's bill of costs.  The bill of costs was filed by the plaintiff Mr. E.M. Chacha for and on behalf of Mwanza Mechanical Engineering.  During the hearing of this bill of costs the defendant was not present though he was served with the notice. C
There are 8 items in the bill of costs which make a total of Shs. 39,269.50.  The judgment-creditor prayed that the bill of costs be taxed as presented.  He claimed that after the judgment had been passed in his favour, he approached the defendants on several occasions so that they could pay him his money. D
Concerning item 1 which were court fees the plaintiff had to pay in opening the suit, I had nothing against it as it was the right of the plaintiff.  I will thus tax the same as presented. E
Under item 3 the plaintiff stated that the amount was for transport charges to and from Court on 9 various occasions at the rate of Shs. 500/= per trip.  He stated that he used to travel from Mwanza South to this court and after the case he returned to his office.  I have deeply considered the amount claimed and no one can doubt that it is excessive.  Even if one could hire a taxi to and from the court the amount per trip could not reach F the amount claimed by the plaintiff.  I have perused the record and I admit that the plaintiff made the 9 trips as indicated in the bill of costs.  The plaintiff has not presented any receipts to support his claim.  In any case I would think that Shs. 100/= to and from the court would be a reasonable amount as a transport charge.  I thus take off Shs. G 3,600/= from item No. 3 and allow Shs. 900/= which I think is reasonable.
In the same manner in item 6 the plaintiff claims Shs. 5,600/= as transport charges to and from Magu and accommodation expenses in response to the defendant's letter.  Again as I stated above the plaintiff never presented any receipts to support his claims.  The only H supporting document the plaintiff has filed is a photocopy which indicates that he was called by the defendants for the settlement of the debt.  However the plaintiff has failed to prove for how long he stayed at Magu.  Thus this court has not been provided with some evidence to allow the costs.  Thus the whole amount is taxed off. I
In item No. 7 the plaintiff is claiming for loss and/or damages incurred

due to the stoppage of the cheque.  It has always been held that costs claimed in a case A must be costs incidental to the suit.  The loss and or damage incurred does not fall under that head and cannot be entertained in this taxation of bill of costs.  This argument would also apply in item No. 8 where the plaintiff prays for interest at court rates.  I thus tax off items No. 7 and No. 8 as they are not costs incidental to this suit. B
Having so held as above this bill of costs is taxed at Shs. 2,926/=.
Order accordingly.

C