Description
Interference with the decision of the taxing officer – injudiciously – judiciously – EFD receipt – taxation of bill of costs – quantum of an instruction fee – proof of instruction fees by presentation of receipts, vouchers and/or remuneration agreement – principle of consistency.
- The award of instruction fees is peculiarly within the discretion of a taxing officer and the Court will always be reluctant to interfere with his decision, unless it is proved that the taxing officer exercised his discretion injudiciously or has acted upon a wrong principle or applied wrong consideration. (p. 8).
- Four guiding principles which have to be considered when determining the quantum of an instruction fee. (p. 9).
- In taxation of bill of costs there is no need of proof of instruction fees by presentation of receipts, vouchers and/or remuneration agreement because the taxing officer, among others, is expected to determine the quantum of the said fees in accordance with the cost scales statutorily provided for together with the factors enumerated in paragraph 9 (2) (3) and (4) of the Third Schedule to the Rules. (p. 12).
- Instruction fees are supposed to compensate adequately an advocate for the work done in preparation and conduct of a case and not to enrich him. (p. 12).
- It was found that the principle of consistency in taxation was violated. That violation resulted into wrong consideration. (p. 13).
- Since the appeal was not complex as it was only struck out on technical grounds, in observance of the principle of consistency, the instruction fees of TZS 10,000,000.00 awarded to the respondent was excessive. (p. 14).
