E.M.H. CHACHA T/A MWANZA MECHANICAL ENGINEERING v KATIBU WA WILAYA MAGU AND CHAMA CHA MAPINDUZI MAGU 1983 TLR 344 (HC)

E.M.H. CHACHA T/A MWANZA MECHANICAL ENGINEERING v KATIBU WA WILAYA MAGU AND CHAMA CHA MAPINDUZI MAGU 1983 TLR 344 (HC)

Court High Court of Tanzania - Mwanza

Judge Lawena DR - Taxing Master

June 13, 1985

CIVIL CASE 50 OF 1983 G

Flynote

Civil Practice and Procedure - Costs - Taxation of - Costs incidental to suit - Whether

include damages and interest.

-Headnote

The petitioner presented a bill of costs amounting to Shs.39,269/50 for taxation after

he H had successfully sued the respondents jointly. Among the items in the bill was

a claim for damages incurred due to stoppage of a cheque drawn by the respondents

in favour of the petitioner and a prayer for interest at the court's rate. I

Held: (i) Costs claimed in a case must be costs incidental to the suit; loss

1983 TLR p345

LAWENA D R

and damage incurred does not fall within this category and neither does interest. A

Case Information

Order accordingly.

No cases referred to. B

[zJDz]Judgment

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

1983 TLR p346

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.

1983 TLR p346

C