Far Distribution v Malawi Electoral Commission (Civil Cause No.130 of 2005) ((Civil Cause No.130 of 2005)) [2005] MWHC 79 (16 August 2005);

Share

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI

LILONGWE DISTRICT REGISTRY

CIVIL CAUSE NO.130 OF 2005

BETWEEN

FAR DISTRIBUTION ………………………………………………………. PLAINTIFF

AND

MALAWI ELECTORAL COMMISSION ……………………………….. DEFENDANT


CORAM:. T.R. Ligowe: Assistant Registrar

Chilenga : Counsel for the Defendant

Anwar Abudulla : ( Appearing in person for the plaintiff firm)


RULING

This is a notice on appointment to tax costs.


The plaintiff was not represented in this matter. He has presented his bill of costs for taxation. Counsel for the defendant objects on the ground that the defendant had paid K218 902.50 into court, and that that payment was made even before the plaintiff applied for summary judgment.


The general effect of Order 22 of the Rules of the Supreme Court which provides for payment into court as far as costs are concerned is that the costs are in absolute discretion of the court. See Paragraph 22/1/3 of the RSC. Payment into court and acceptance of the same operates as a stay of further proceedings in the matter. But on closely looking at the matter it appears the parties did not follow the provisions of Order 22 as it should on payment into court. All the same, since the court has the discretion on costs, the plaintiff will have to be awarded his costs of the action which since he is appearing in person are basically disbursements i.e. his transport to and from court, filing fees and possibly typing costs.


I have carefully looked at the plaintiff’s bill of costs and I tax it at K9000.


Made in chambers this 16th day of August 2005.





T.R. Ligowe

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR