Mwalusanya, J:
The appellant Hassani s/o Kilala filed a bill of costs at Kondoa Urban Primary Court for taxation. In fact he filed a fresh case, Civil Case No 23 of 1993. The bill of costs was for a case that started at D Kondoa Urban Primary Court as civil case No 3 of 1987, then the case went on appeal to Kondoa District Court as Civil Appeal No 16 of 1988 and ended with the High Court Dodoma Civil Appeal No 77 of 1991. The bill of costs presented at the Primary Court was for a claim of Shs 123,880/=. The E bill of costs after taxation a sum of Shs 21,000/= only was allowed. The District Court on appeal raised the sum payable as costs to Shs 37,020/=. The appellant was aggrieved and hence the appeal to this court.
It is patently clear that both the Primary Court and District Court are ignorant about where taxation F proceedings are to be conducted. If they knew they would have advised the appellant accordingly.
The first mistake that was made was that it was improper for the appellant to file a fresh case for taxation proceedings. It was wrong in here to file Civil Case No 23 of 1993. The proper procedure is G for the applicant to file his bill of costs in the case file itself in which he was successful - that is civil case No 3 of 1987. The taxation proceedings in the main suit.
Secondly, it appears the two magistrates who dealt with the matter are not aware of the The H Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules GN No 515 of 1991. These Rules are made under the provisions of the Advocates Ordinance Cap 341. These rules as per rule 2 are applicable to courts subordinate to the High Court. For cases starting from the Primary Court and ending with the High Court the taxing master is the District Registrar of the High Court. For a case starting with a I Primary Court and ending with the Tanzania Court of Appeal the taxing master is the Registrar of
the Court of Appeal or his deputy. For a case starting from the Primary Court and ending in a District A Court, the taxing master is the Primary Court Magistrate concerned.
Therefore in the case at hand the Primary Court Magistrate concerned was wrong to usurp the functions of the District Registrar because the suit in question ended in the High Court. The trial B magistrate should have advised the appellant to file his bill of costs with the High Court. The procedure explained above has an advantage because the High Court has all the proceedings of the Primary Court and those of the District Court and so it becomes easy to take note of appearance of the parties in Court. In the case at hand the Primary Court Magistrate has no case file of the High C Court and so he had only to guess or speculate as to how many appearances the parties made at the High Court.
That was quite improper.
In the event I declare the proceedings of both courts below to be a nullity. The appellant should file a D fresh bill of costs with the High Court. Each party will bear its own costs of this appeal.
As this error that has presented itself in this appeal is common all over the Zone, I direct the District Registrar to serve a copy of this judgment to all Primary Court Magistrates and District Magistrates of this zone. Order accordingly. E
F
________________