IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA

AT DAR ES SALAAM
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 112 OF 2003
BETWEEN
CITIBANK TANZANIA LIMITED.....APPLICANT
AND
TANZANIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LTD..1
ST
RESPONDENT
TANZANIA REVENUE AUTHORITY.2
ND
RESPONDENT
TANZANIA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.3
RD
RESPONDENT
VIP ENGINEERING AND MARKETING LIMITED..4
TH
RESPONDENT
THE LIUIDATOR! TRI"TELECOMMUNICATION
TANZANIA LIMITED..#
TH
RESPONDENT
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
23
$%
M&$'() 200* + 4
,(
M&-) 200*
R U L I N G
...........
WAMBURA/TA0ING OFFICER1
This taxation matter which has seven items arises from
application No. 112/2003 lodged on the 26
th
November 2004 and was
determined b Nse!ela" #.$. whereb the applicants were awarded
costs.
%r. Tenga for the applicant contended that a drawn order was
not attached as the respondents co&nsel ref&sed to sign it sometime
in %arch 2004 and to date the have not settled the same.
%r. Tenga f&rther arg&ed that '. 11()3* provides for
rem&neration of the $dvocate and the client for disb&rsement of the
costs. +e said in the +igh ,o&rt the scale in set at 3- of the claim
and praed that this co&rt sho&ld not to grant less then that amo&nt
in that the s&b.ect matter involved in the application was gross being
/011( million" th&s 3- of the claim wo&ld amo&nt to 22("(40/3.
%r. Tenga cited the case of GEORGE MBUGUNI AND ANOTHER
23 A.S. MASKINI 14(0 T5' 23 as decided b +on. 0amatta" #. )as
he then was* where he commented on the iss&e of instr&ction fees
which he insisted on the complexit and time ta!en to research the
matter.
+e th&s praed that item 1 be taxed as presented as well as
the disb&rsements in items 2 6 7 which he said were not excessive.
'esponding to these arg&ments %r. %&.&li8i for the respondent
arg&ed that the costs as claimed in item 1 sho&ld not be granted to
the applicants as it was a mere application see!ing revision and the
applicants were not parties to the winding &p proceedings.
+e f&rther &rged that since in terms of '&le 11( and '&le 4)1*
the matter before the ,o&rt was an application" the taxation sho&ld
be in line with '&le 1 and th&s the scale sho&ld not be at 3- as it
wo&ld be the same as in a s&it. $gain there was no research done
b the applicant as the were merel aggrieved b a ,o&rt 9rder in
2
the winding &p proceedings. The r&ling in the case of GEORGE
MBUGUNI can th&s not be relied &pon b them.
+e admitted that the Tshs.100/3 minimal costs as
provided for in '&le 1 is not realistic b&t insisted that the Taxing
9fficer sho&ld not grant an excessive amo&nt b&t be g&ided b the
principles set&p in the case of C. B. N%454 23 I%%6 E76&( and
$nother 144( T5' pg 41 . +e believed the amo&nt of Tshs. 3 million
wo&ld cover the amo&nt of energ &sed" citing the case of A,,8$94-
G494$&7 23 P$4:'(4$% R&6'(&9% in 1472 :$5' 162.
%r. %&.&li8i did not disp&te items 2 and 3 which amo&nt to
Tshs. 2"000/;. +e however disp&ted items 4 6 7 amo&nting to Tshs.
220"000/; for fail&re to prod&ce relevant receipts.
<n his repl %r. Tenga said winding &p proceedings are also
s&its and the have been paing &p to Tshs. 200 million as filing fees.
+e &rged that the amo&nts awarded depend on the complexit of the
matter as was correctl cited in the case of ,. =. Ndege.
+e f&rther contended that in winding &p proceedings ever
creditor does not have to appear. +e praed that taxation sho&ld not
be down scaled as it was done b the 5ate 5&ga!ingira in A:83
S(8:2;<3 case b&t be according to the economic changes ta!ing
place in the co&ntr.
3
< than! all co&nsels for their time and arg&mentive
s&bmissions. < will start with the iss&e whether this matter> is
properl in co&rt. %r. Tenga said a drawn 9rder has not seen
attached d&e to the fact that co&nsels have failed to reach an
agreement on that. %r. %&.&li8i said nothing on the matter. <
believe the matter co&ld proceed as it is not a re?&irement in law
that the drawn order has to be attached to a bill of costs in matters
before the ,o&rt of $ppeal of Tan8ania.
< will begin b granting items 2 and 3 as praed beca&se the
have not been disp&ted b the respondents. This wo&ld amo&nt to
Tshs. 2"000/3.
%r. Tenga made on repl as far as items 4 6 7 are concerned
and so < tax off the fo&r items as praed for b the respondents for
want of receipts.
< remain with the contentio&s item which is item No. 1 being a
claim of Tshs. 631"434"200/3.
The ?&estion of costs has been provided for in para 4)1*" )2*"
)3* and )4* which provide@
=. > ?1@ T(4 A44 ,8 B4 &778C4% A8$ 693,$;',6893 ,8 :&D4)
3;EE8$, 8$ 8EE834 &9- &EE76'&,689 3(&77 B4 3;'(
4
3;: &3 ,(4 ,&F695 8AA6'4$ 3(&77 '8936%4$ $4&389&B74
B;, 3(&77 98, B4 7433 ,(&9 S(3.100/.
?2@ T(4 A44 ,8 B4 &778C4% A8$ 693,$;',6893 ,8 &EE4&7 8$
,8 8EE834 &9 &EE4&7 3(&77 B4 3;'( 3;: &3 ,(4
,&F695 8AA6'4$ 3(&77 '8936%4$ $4&389&B74) (&2695
$45&$% ,8 ,(4 &:8;9, 6928724% 69 ,(4 &EE4&7) 6,3
9&,;$4) 6:E8$,&9'4 &9% %6AA6';7,-) ,(4 69,4$43, 8A
,(4 E&$,643 ,(4 8,(4$ '83,3 ,8 B4 &778C4%) ,(4
5494$&7 '89%;', 8A ,(4 E$8'44%6953) ,(4 A;9% 8$
E4$389 ,8 B4&$ ,(4 '83,3 &9% &77 8,(4$ $4742&9,
'6$';:3,&9'43.
?3@ T(4 3;: &778C4% ;9%4$ 3;B"E&$&5$&E( ?2@ 3(&77
69'7;%4 &77 C8$D 94'433&$67- &9% E$8E4$7- %894 69
'8994',689 C6,( ,(4 &EE4&7 &9% 98, 8,(4$C634
'(&954&B74 69'7;%695 &,,49%&9'43)
'8$$43E89%49'4) E4$;3&73 &9% '893;7,695
&;,(8$6,643.
(4) O,(4$ '83,3 3(&77) 3;BG4', ,8 ,(4 E$82636893 8A
E&$&5$&E(3 10) 11 &9% 12) B4 &C&$%4% 69
&''8$%&9'4 C6,( ,(4 3'&74 34, 8;, B478C 8$) 69
$43E4', 8A &9- :&,,4$ A8$ C(6'( 98 E$82636893 63
:&%4 69 ,(834 3'&743) 69 &''8$%&9'4 C6,( ,(4 3'&74
&EE76'&B74 69 ,(4 H65( C8;$,.

Now reading thro&gh Aara )1* 6 )4* it is obvio&s that the
minimal amo&nt is act&all not Tshs.100/3 if one considers items )2*"
)3* and )4*. <tem fo&r goes f&rther to state that where no provision
is made than taxation sho&ld be in accordance with the scale
applicable in the +igh ,o&rt. The ?&estion here whether a Taxation
9fficer in the ,o&rt of $ppeal can grant costs in accordance in with
the scales in the +igh ,o&rt or increase the amo&nt which wo&ld
5
mean 3- and above of the val&e of the propert / s&it a praed b
the applicants. <n this matter wo&ld hesitate to sa so for a n&mber
of reasons.
O94" if this co&rt grants that same amo&nt for an appeal it
wo&ld be do&ble or triple paments beca&se a bill of costs filed in the
,o&rt of $ppeal of Tan8ania deals with iss&es in the ,o&rt of $ppeal
and not those of the +igh ,o&rt. This is beca&se a bill of costs in the
,o&rt of $ppeal is not a bar to filing bill of costs in the +igh ,o&rt.
TC8" &nless there was proof that the said instr&ction fee was paid
for in the +igh ,o&rt and again in the ,o&rt of $ppeal than the same
co&ld be granted. This has not been done. $t most one onl pas
&%%6,689&7 '83,3 which are the ones which sho&ld be granted b
the ,o&rt of $ppeal.
The ?&ant&m of costs s&rel remains in the discretion of the
Taxation 9fficer b&t has to be reasonable.
Bhereas %r. Tenga is claiming 3- of the val&e of the propert
in disp&te" %r. %&.&li8i has proposed for pament of Tshs.3 million as
fair compensation for the wor! d&e. /ndisp&ted the amo&nt claimed
b %r. Tenga co&ld be proper in the +igh ,o&rt where the applicant
can still go and claim it. < th&s grant Tshs. 12 million on item 1
which < believe is reasonable.
6
The total amo&nt granted th&s stands at Tshs. 12"002"000/3.
Cated at C$' :0 0$5$$% this 4
th
da of %a" 2006.
S. A. N. WAMBURA,
SENIOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR/
TAXING OFFICER

7