https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/620

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT BUNGOMA** **CIVIL CASE NO. E475 OF 2024** **BLESSINGS WANYONYI WAFULA (Suing through father and next friend EVANS WEKESA BARASA)………………………………………………………………...................PLAINTIFF** **VERSUS** **MORANGA ANYOKA GETANGE....………………………..................1ST DEFENDANT** **ELIJA OGOTI ANYOKA…………………………………………………2ND DEFENDANT** **RULING** 1. This ruling determines the Plaintiff’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 22nd April 2026. This court has given due regard to the instant Bill of Costs as well as the 2nd Defendant’s written submissions on record 2. The items objected by the 2nd Defendant have been assessed as set out below. **Instruction Fees** 1. Schedule 7(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order (ARO) provides for a minimum instruction fees of Kshs. 40,000/= in cases where the value of the subject is between Kshs. 100,000/= and Kshs. 200,000/=. Considering the nature of this suit and the time taken to conclude the same, this court finds that instruction fees of Kshs. 45,000/= is reasonable. 2. It is for the reasons above that item A was assessed as drawn. **Value Added Tax** 1. VAT is chargeable where a party supplies taxable goods or services to another party. There was no taxable supply of goods and services between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The costs arising from this ruling are not the Plaintiff’s counsel’s income which attracts VAT but the Plaintiff’s costs of the suit. The costs of the suit due to the Plaintiff herein cannot thus attract VAT. 2. Therefore, item B was assessed off in line with the holding in **Pyramid Motors Limited vs Langata Gardens Limited (2015) eKLR** and **Kenya Commercial Bank Limited v Stagecoach Management Limited [2017] eKLR.** **Filing Fees** 1. Item 2 was assessed off since the same is not provided for under Schedule 7 of the ARO. In any event, there is no proof on record of such an expenditure. 2. Item 4 was assessed off for want of proof. 3. Item 5 was assessed off for being a repeat of item 3. 4. Item 6 was assessed off for want of proof. **Service** 1. Item 8 was assessed off for want of proof. 2. Items 10 -16 involved service via e-mail. The said items were assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= each per the holding in **Aoro v Were (Miscellaneous Reference Application E019 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 14628 (KLR),** Aburili, J, where rendered herself as follows on the cost of service via e-mail: *“53.The starting point herein is to point out that whereas order 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules relates to service of summons, it applies mutatis mutandis to service of other court processes, which include applications and related documents. This provision, it should be noted, was necessitated by the advent of Covid-19 pandemic which made it impossible for personal and even postal service of documents or court processes.* *54.For the above reasons, I hold that service via e-mail is still service and draws an award of Kshs. 1,400 in line with Paragraph 10 of schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. I find no error on the part of the taxing officer in awarding the respondent items 9,10,24,33,38,41,42,45 as drawn. Accordingly, the objection thereto is found to be devoid of any merit.”* **Drawing and Filing of Affidavits of Service** 1. Items 30 – 37 were assessed at Kshs. 1,000/= each per schedule 7(11) of the ARO. **DETERMINATION** 1. The upshot of the foregoing is that the Plaintiff’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 22nd April 2026 is assessed at Kshs. 108,440/=. **Read, signed, and delivered in open court at Bungoma this 21st day of July 2026** **T.O. OMONO** **SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE** **In the presence of:** Mr. Bw’onchiri for the Plaintiff C/A: Mr. Rioba