DR. J. E. RUHANGISA, TAXING OFFICER
 In this bill of costs filed by Mr. Dan Ogalo learned Counsel for the
applicant, a total of USD 23,076 is claimed as costs incurred by the
applicants in the course of conducting the suit, namely Reference No. 1 of
2005. The claims leveled against the Judgment debtor, East African Community
basically relate to reimbursement for actual expenses incurred by the
applicants, to wit, costs for filing the reference and bill of costs USD
510, stationery USD 400, travel and upkeep expenses USD 22,076. Indeed the
bill of costs attempted to comply with the Court order for costs that the
bill of costs by the applicant and the taxing officer should limit the
taxation thereof to those disbursements. However, the bill of costs was not
properly structured; it lacked details and in some parts confusing as
receipts (documentary evidence) in support of claims, were muddled. The
receipts attached to the bill of costs did not refer to any specific item
that they meant to support. It was just a bunch of receipts, some charged in
US Dollars and others in Tanzanian Shillings, all left to the Court to
decide which receipt belonged to which item.
 Mr. Wilbert Kaahwa, Counsel to the Community represented the respondent
in opposing various items of the application. Mr. Kaahwa had also
represented the Respondent during hearing of the main reference.
 This application has taken a long time to conclude due to the tight
schedule the Court was operating from and also due to non appearance of
applicants when the application came forhearing on 3rd May 2007. The Court,
due to non appearance of applicants, adjourned and fixed 16th July 2007 a
hearing date. Before the application came for hearing on 16th July 2007, the
Court received a letter from the EAC Secretariat signed by Mr. Wilbert
Kaahwa, Counsel to the Community which letter was also signed and acceded to
by Mr. Dan Ogalo counsel for the Respondent. The letter which was amended
twice, the last one being that of 27th September 2007, would appear to have
made the taxation exercise easy as it expressed the Respondent’s concerns on
some of the items in the bill of costs which concerns were totally conceded
to by the applicants. However, reality on the ground show that, every work
was left to the taxing officer to deal with the nitty-gritty including to
determine the rate of exchange for those bills which were in Tanzanian
 Since the respondent did not identify any specific item requiring the
Court’s determination of the rate of exchange nor did he dispute the rate of
exchange applied by the applicant, the Court goes along with the figures
presented by the applicant in Us Dollar denomination. Be it as it may, I
take that letter to represent a bill of costs that was consented to by both
parties. It is this particular element of consent by both parties that would
have made the work of the Taxing Master an easy one. For avoidance of doubt
and for ease of reference let me reproduce verbatim here below the content
of the said letter.
“Reference is made to the notice of taxation in the above-mentioned matter
which was fixed for taxation on 16th July, 2007.
Much as I find Applicants’ Bill of Costs confined to disbursements as
ordered by the Honourable Court in its judgment, I am not able to state that
the bill is not out of dispute. To this extent I and the Counsel for the
Applicants have discussed the matter and agreed that we indicate those
disbursements which you will take into account in taxing the Bill. This is
with a view to saving on time and expediting your taxation process.
On this basis I wish to point out the following matters.
1.0 Supporting Documentation
Some of the alleged expenses are not supported by documentary evidence.
However, in respect of the items in which the advocates attended Court and
therefore met expenses of travel and accommodation award should be made
since the Court records show presence in Arusha even though there is no
documentary evidence. That notwithstanding, I comment as follows:
(a) The US$ 23,076 in the Bill does not tally with the aggregate amounts
shown on the attachment:
(b) The exchange rates used with respect to the Tanzania Shilling and Kenyan
Shilling vis-à-vis the US Dollar in respect of the various expenses incurred
on different dates is not indicated and is left to Court to determine;
(c) Whereas accommodation rates incurred on 12th June, 2005, 22nd June, 2006
and 7th August 2006 by the Applicants’ Counsel are indicated at US$ 100 in
the Bill, the attached invoices from the hotels above, actual expenditure to
have been US$ 60 in respect of each Counsel.
2.0 Unclear Items
(a) the US$ 1,320 expenses for the “Kilimanjaro Arusha” item on 22nd June,
2006 is unclear and on the high side;
(b) the US$ 1,330 item for attendance of two Counsel to tax the bill of
Costs does not arise because on 3rd May 2006 when the matter came up none of
the Applicants’ Counsel were in Court.
With regard to the costs of certain items, Your Worship is requested to use
a standard basis to allow only reasonable amounts/amounts reasonably
incurred. In this regard, I dispute the costs on wine (on 7th August, 2006,
9th August, 2006 and 18 August, 2006).
The purpose of this communication is to apprise you as above and guide you
accordingly in taxation of the Bill. With this development Counsel for both
parties requested that the formal hearing on taxation fixed for 16th July
2007 be put off and taxation be done by Your Worship in our absence.
This letter supersedes all our previous correspondence on this matter.”
 The above statements were followed by Mr. Kaahwa’s signature together
with Mr. Ogallo’s signature, and the latter’s signature was preceded by the
following words of Mr. Ogallo: “I concede to the above”, meaning that Mr.
Ogallo was totally in agreement with Mr. Kaahwa’s concerns and that he
wanted the Court tax the bill of costs to the extent consented and or
objected to by Mr. Kaahwa. The Court therefore has to evaluate Mr. Kaahwa’s
submission as consented to by Mr. Ogallo and determine the extent to which
the bill of costs has to be allowed.
 As Mr. Kaahwa rightly pointed out indeed the US$ 23,076 in the Bill does
not tally with the aggregate amounts shown on the attachment and there was
no single documentary evidence (air tickets) filed by the applicants in
support of the travel claim. This glaring weakness on the part of the
applicant’s claim was conceded to by Mr. Ogallo who apparently raised no
objection for taxing off such claims by the Court except where Court records
show that they were present in Arusha. The only documentary evidence that
the applicant was able to produce, relate to accommodation and subsistence/up
keep while in Arusha. It is against this background that the bill of costs
is taxed accordingly.
 I find the sum of USD 510 in items 1 and 6 to be a genuine claim as it
was the actual expense incurred by the applicant in filing the reference and
the bill of costs respectively and I tax theclaim to that amount. The Amount
of USD 3,450 in item 2 relating to travel by 4 Counsel to Nairobi for a
consultative meeting is taxed off for want of evidence in support of the
 I have perused the Court proceedings for 15th - 16th June 2007 and found
that three counsel and 1st applicant attended the scheduling conference. The
disbursements claimed in item 3 are therefore taxed to the tune of USD
3,844. In arriving at this figure I have taken into consideration the fact
that the US$ 1,320 expenses for the “Kilimanjaro Arusha” as claimed in item
3 ( 22nd June, 2006) is on the high side even by simple arithmetic. I am
made to understand that the claim in that item represents the costs for hire
of Taxi from Kilimanjaro to Arusha and then to Kilimanjaro by three Counsel
which is usually USD 50 per trip. This means USD 50 x 3 x 2 = 300. It is
against this background that on this particular item the amount of USD 1,020
is therefore taxed off and only USD 300 is taxed as reasonable costs.
 It is also on record that at different times when the case came for
hearing on 8th – 17th August, 2007, the applicants were represented by a
battery of lawyers namely Prof. F. Ssempebwa, Mr. Ogallo, Mr. Marando, Mr.
Kaggwa and Mrs. Bagalaaliwo. This gives credence to the claim for attendance
costs covering transport, accommodation and up keep as per item 4 of the
bill of costs. I find the amount in item 5 to be reasonable and tax it as
presented save for the sum of USD 89 (Tshs 101,000/=) being cost of wine and
beer which I find to be unnecessary expense that was unnecessarily incurred
and therefore tax it off.
 Also the claim of US$ 1,330 for attendance of two Counsel to tax the
bill of Costs does not arise because on 3rd May 2006 when the matter came
for taxation none of the Applicants’ Counsel were in Court such that the
matter was adjourned for hearing on 16th July 2007. This amount of USD 1,330
is therefore taxed off.
 Indeed the accommodation costs incurred on 12th June, 2005, 22nd June,
2006 and 7th August 2006 by the Applicants’ Counsel are indicated in the
Bill at the rate of US$ 100 per day. However, the attached invoices from the
hotel indicate that the actual expenditure for accommodation was at the rate
of USD 60 per night in respect of each Counsel. This Court therefore goes by
the rate as supported by receipts/invoice issued by the hotels indicating
that the accommodation rate per night was USD 60. For purpose of this
application, accommodation costs where applicable are respectively taxed at
the rate of USD 60 per night.
 In total this bill is taxed at USD 13,337 (US Dollars Thirteen Thousand
Three Hundred Thirty Seven) only.
I so tax
Dated at Arusha this day of 2007
1st November 2007