Court sets over 21bn/- legal costs for IPTL, Pan Africa Power
DAR ES SALAAM: THE Court of Appeal has assessed legal costs at 8 million US dollars (about 21.11bn/-) payable to Independent Power Tanzania Limited (IPTL) and Pan Africa Power Solutions (T) Limited after the companies successfully challenged an appeal by Standard Chartered Bank in a longrunning 168 million US dollars (about 443.31bn/-) commercial dispute.
The decision was delivered on Wednesday this week by Court of Appeal Deputy Registrar and Taxing Officer, Joseph Fovo, in Taxation No. 65 of 2026, arising from Civil Appeal No. 386 of 2022.
The dispute originates from a judgment of the High Court of England’s Commercial Division, which entered judgment for Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited and Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Berhad for 168 million US dollars against IPTL and Pan Africa Power. The banks subsequently sought to register and enforce the judgment in Tanzania.
IPTL and Pan Africa Power challenged the enforcement proceedings, arguing that the appeal was incompetent. On January 9, 2026, the Court of Appeal struck out the appeal, allowing the companies to pursue recovery of legal costs.
Following that decision, the two companies filed a bill of costs claiming 10.29 million US dollars, including instruction fees of 5.04 million US dollars for each applicant.
They argued that the amount was justified by the complexity and value of the dispute and its international nature.
The respondents opposed the claim, arguing that the appeal did not involve an ascertainable monetary sum and that separate instruction fees were unjustified because both applicants were represented by the same advocate.
ALSO READ: High Court dismisses StanChart appeal application in IPTL case
In his ruling, Mr Fovo rejected the objections, holding that although the applicants shared legal representation, each faced separate liability under the 168 million US dollars judgment and was therefore entitled to separate instruction fees.
However, he found the amount claimed excessive, noting that the appeal had been determined at a preliminary stage without a full hearing on its merits.
He also rejected the respondents’ proposed instruction fee of 5m/- as unreasonably low, considering the value and complexity of the matter.
