High Court judge Justice Priscilla Chigumba, on Wednesday castigated a local law firm, Puwayi Chiutsi Legal Practitioners, for filing a court application seeking a $4 641 taxation refund, against the taxing officer and the Registrar of the High Court.
BY CHARLES LAITON
Justice Chigumba said it was the first time the courts had encountered such an application since the country gained independence in 1980.
The law firm filed the application in February this year under case number HC1960/16, arguing the taxing officer was not entitled to the amount, which the law firm had paid.
But Justice Chigumba asked the lawyers representing the law firm to provide the court with similar cases that had been dealt with in the history of Zimbabwe, but the legal practitioner was found wanting.
“This has never been done at all since the country gained independence. Thirty-five years down the line, an application of this nature has never been heard of,” the judge said, drawing laughter from a number of lawyers that had attended the motion court.
“My brother judge asked you to file heads of argument with a view to allow you to make reference to similar cases that had been decided before, if any, but you failed to establish a cause of action. Educate me if there is another similar case that was done before. This is the first of its kind. Application is dismissed with costs for want of merits,” she ruled.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
In his founding affidavit, lawyer Puwayi Chiutsi had submitted that the taxing officer had raised a taxing fee, but the taxation was later set aside by review in case number HC9821/14.
“The parties resolved the matter and the bill was withdrawn. . . There has been no need for a re-taxation as the taxation was first suspended by review and second, it has been withdrawn,” he argued.
“The respondent (taxing officer) is not entitled to the sum of $4 641,40 which he unlawfully refuses to refund.”
In a letter dated January 8, 2015 addressed to Chiutsi, the registrar of the High Court wrote:
“. . . We cannot refund the taxing fee paid because it is a statutory requirement. Statutory Instrument 426 of 1992 states that any bill of costs taxed by the registrar or taxing master should pay taxing fee of 20%. Since the bill of costs is now under review, you should wait until the bill is re-taxed and you can be refunded the difference.”
