IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

DAR ES SALAAM SUB REGISTRY

AT DAR ES SALAAM

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21949 OF 2025

(Arising from Civil Case No. 17175 of 2025)
_______________________
SENOMAG LIMITED…………….………………………………..APPLICANT

VERSUS

NI SALT COMPANY LIMITED……………………..……1ST RESPONDENT

MONSIEUR INNOCENT NDUWAYO…………..………2ND RESPONDENT

RULING
16th and 22nd September 2025

MTEMBWA, J.:

This is an application for security for costs arising from Civil Case No.

17175 of 2025, in which the Respondents claim against the Applicant for a

declaration that the Applicant acted negligently, causing damages to the

Respondents’ vehicle, loss of goods, income, and other costs related to the

accident; an order for payment of Tanzanian Shillings 468,750,500/= covering

repair costs for the damaged vehicle, lost goods, lost income, and other

expenses incidental to the accident; an order for payment of 18% interest on

the claimed amount from the date of the accident to the filing of the suit; an

order for payment of 7% compound interest on the decretal sum from the date

of judgment to the date of full payment, along with the costs of the suit. The

1
Application has been made under Order XXV Rule 1 (1) and (2) of the Civil

Procedure Code, Cap 33 R.E 2023 (hereinafter “CPC”), and is supported by

an affidavit of Dennis Christopher Mwesiga, the Applicant’s counsel.

When the matter came for hearing on 16th September 2025, the Applicant

was represented by Ms. Haisa Rumanyika, the learned counsel, while Mr. Litete

Haji Ndungo, the learned counsel, represented the Respondents. The hearing

proceeded orally.

Arguing in support of the Application, Ms. Haisa Rumanyika stated that the

Application has been filed under Order XXV rules (1) and (2) of the CPC and

is supported by an Affidavit from Denis Christopher Mwesiga, the learned

counsel. She urged this Court to accept and adopt it. She added that, under the

cited law, for an application of this nature to succeed, the law requires the

satisfaction of two conditions. First, the Plaintiff must reside outside Tanzania

and not own any significant immovable property in Tanzania. She cited the case

of Pipes Industries Company Limited vs. Kolon Global Corporation,

Misc. Commercial Application No. 3357 of 2025, High Court of

Tanzania, Commercial Division at Dar Es Salaam, and Efficient

Freighters Limited vs. Omax Ferro Alloys Zambia Limited, Misc.

Commercial Application No. 3862 of 2025, High Court of Tanzania,

Commercial Division at Dar Es Salaam.

2
 The learned counsel argued that the first Respondent is a foreign company

registered under the laws of Burundi. Meanwhile, the second Respondent is a

natural person residing and working for income in both Burundi and Tanzania.

She referred this Court to paragraphs 1 and 13 of the Plaint in Civil Case No.

17175 of 2025.

Secondly, the learned counsel argued that the Respondents do not own

any known immovable property in Tanzania, other than the property in dispute,

which the first Respondent owns. As such, if the Applicant wins the case, she

will face significant difficulties in recovering the costs incurred during the case

because neither of the Respondents resides in Tanzania nor appears to own any

known property there.

It was further argued that the amount to be deposited as security for costs

would cover professional fees, transportation costs, meetings, filing fees, and

other statutory expenses. Based on that, the learned counsel implored this

Court to issue an order directing the Respondents to deposit the sum of

Tanzania Shillings 70,000,000/= as security for costs.

In response, Mr. Litete Haji Ndungo implored this Court to adopt the

Counter Affidavit that he filed on behalf of the Respondents. He conceded to the

very facts that the Respondents reside and work for gain in the Republic of

Burundi. He disputed the amount proposed by the Applicant's counsel as

security for costs. He referred this Court to the decision of Rajif Bharat Ramji

3
vs. Power Generation Middle East FZE, Mis Civil Application No. 37 of

2023 (2023 TZHC) 16912 (21 April 2023), where it was observed that the

purpose of granting security for costs is not to prevent the Plaintiff from

accessing justice but to ensure that the Defendant covers his or her costs. In all

cases, the Court should consider the complexity of the matter, costs, and time

spent on research. The Applicant must demonstrate how the proposed figure

was calculated or determined. He criticized the Applicant for failing to explain

how she arrived at the suggested amount because, according to the Advocate

Remuneration Order, the taxable amount would not exceed Tanzanian Shillings

14,000,000/=. At any rate, the amount to be paid as security for costs should

not exceed Tanzania Shillings 20,000,000/=.

In her brief reply, Ms. Haisa Rumanyika argued that the Affidavit adopted

indicates how the proposed amount was calculated. She maintained that the

Application should be granted as sought.

Having dispassionately considered the rival arguments for and against the

Application, the issue for determination is whether the Application is meritorious.

Indeed, Order XXV, Rule 1(1) and (2) of the CPC needs no interpolation. It

provides as follows;

1(1) Where, at any stage of a suit, it appears to the court that a

sole plaintiff is, or (when there are more plaintiffs than one) that all
the plaintiffs are residing out of Tanzania, and that such plaintiff
does not, or that no one of such plaintiffs does, possess any
sufficient immovable property within Tanzania other than the

4
 property in suit, the court may, either of its motion or on the
application of any defendant, order the plaintiff or plaintiffs, within
a time fixed by it, to give security for the payment of all costs
incurred and likely to be incurred by any defendant.

(2) Whoever leaves Tanzania under such circumstances as to afford

reasonable probability that he will not be forthcoming whenever he
may be called upon to pay costs shall be deemed residing out of
Tanzania within the meaning of sub-rule (1).

From the above excerpt, security for costs is an application that a party,

usually the Defendant during proceedings, can file when he or she believes the

other party, the Claimant, lacks the financial ability to pay any legal costs awarded

to the Defendant if the Claimant’s case fails at trial. Typically, such an application

is made by a Defendant; however, in some circumstances, a Claimant or Plaintiff

can also make an application (for example, if the Defendant has filed a

counterclaim). When the Court reviews an application for security for costs, there

are three stages: first, determining the grounds for security; second, assessing

whether the Court should exercise its discretion; and third, determining the

quantum. Gathering from his celebrated book titled the Code of Civil

Procedure, 17th Edition at page 738, Mulla has this to say;

The object of r 1 of O 25 is to provide for the protection of the

defendant in certain cases where, in the event of success, they may
have difficulty in realizing their costs from the plaintiff. The security
for cost can be ordered only in exceptional circumstances on some
established principle and not merely because the court, in its first
impression, opines the suit as not bona fide.

5
 The Applicant’s counsel heavily relies on paragraphs 1 and 13 of the Plaint

in Civil Case No. 17175 of 2025, which state that the Respondents do not live or

work for pay in Tanzania. Based on this, the learned counsel considers the

Respondents to be residents of another country, not Tanzania. Conversely, the

Respondents’ counsel admits that his clients live and work for pay in the Republic

of Burundi. He only suggests that if this Court chooses to exercise its discretion

and issue such an order, the amount payable should not exceed Tanzanian

Shillings 20,000,000/=, rather than the Tanzanian Shillings 70,000,000/= as

proposed by the Applicant’s counsel.

Having considered the pleadings and the submissions by the parties, I agree

with the Applicant’s counsel that, considering the circumstances, the Respondents

do not either reside nor own sufficient or known immovable properties in

Tanzania. To that end, the first condition is satisfied.

Having observed as such, the next issue is the amount the Respondent

should be ordered to deposit as security for costs. The Applicant's counsel argued

to this Court to issue an order directing the Respondent to deposit the sum of

Tanzanian Shillings 70,000,000/= as security for costs. On his part, the

Respondents' counsel argued that, at any rate, the amount payable should not be

more than Tanzanian Shillings 20,000,000/= should the Court invoke its

discretionary powers.

At the outset, I wish to say that the Advocate Remuneration Order does not

6
apply to determine the amount to be deposited as security for costs. The Order

was meant to determine the amount payable to the winning party before the

taxing master during the taxation process. To determine the amount payable, I

wish to be guided by the case of Firoz Haiderali Jessa and two others vs.

Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Limited, Misc. Commercial Application No.

56 of 2019, which quoted with approval the decision of Dow AgroSciences

Export S.A.S. vs. I.S. & M. (Metals) Ltd., Commercial Case No. 55 of

2017, where the factors for consideration in determining the quantum to be

awarded as security for costs were discussed. The Court held that:

Once the court is satisfied that security for costs should be given, it
would consider various factors in determining the quantum,
including the complexity of the case, research workload
involved, and expenses incurred up to the time of
application and after. The applicants should provide sufficient
material to the court showing how the figure proposed, if any, was
arrived at.
(Emphasis mine)

According to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Affidavit, the Applicant has already

incurred and will inevitably continue to incur substantial expenses, including (but

not limited to): professional legal fees, court attendance costs, court fees,

documentation and verification expenses, witness procurement and

accommodation, witness allowances, statutory duties/taxes, and other incidentals

necessary for the proper defense of the case. It was also made clear that the

Applicant has properly contracted to pay professional legal fees amounting to

7
seven percent (7%) of the Respondents' claim value, which equals a sum of

Tanzanian Shillings 28,125,030/=. The Applicant is concerned whether the costs

incurred will be reimbursed if the matter is decided in her favor, given that the

Respondents are not residing in Tanzania and do not own any property other than

the property in dispute, which is owned by the first Respondent.

I have carefully reviewed the Plaint and its annexures, and I am of the

opinion that, at the very least, this case will require research and preparation,

including calling witnesses who may be entitled to allowances, per diems, and

reimbursement for travel expenses. Given the circumstances, I think it is

appropriate for the Respondents to deposit the sum of Tanzanian Shillings

20,000,000/= as security for costs.

To that end, this Application is hereby granted. The sum of Tanzania

Shillings 20,000,000/= must be deposited into the Judiciary Deposit Account

within thirty days from today. Given the circumstances, there will be no order

regarding costs. It is so ordered.

Right of appeal explained.

DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 22nd day of September 2025.

H.S. MTEMBWA
JUDGE
8
9