https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/562
The court taxed off VAT because there was no taxable supply between the parties and the costs were party-and-party costs, not counsel’s income. It allowed only items proved by receipts or otherwise justified under the Advocates Remuneration Order, including email service, attendances, and affidavits of service, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEMC 562 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: GODFREY MAYENDE BARASA; Defendant: ABIUD WAMALWA
- Court
- Magistrate's Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case E261 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case Party and Party Bill of Costs Taxation / Ruling on Taxation of the Plaintiff's Bill of Costs
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 05th May 2026 allowed with modifications and taxed at Kshs. 158,885/=.
- Judges
- ["TO Omono"]
- Legal Topics
- Party and Party Bill of Costs, VAT on Costs, Proof of Filing Fees, Service Via Email, Attendance Fees, Affidavit of Service Charges
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
GODFREY MAYENDE BARASA
Plaintiff
ABIUD WAMALWA
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case Party and Party Bill of Costs Taxation / Ruling on Taxation of the Plaintiff's Bill of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether VAT was chargeable on the Plaintiff's costs
- 2 Whether the challenged filing fee items were proved and allowable
- 3 Whether service by email is recoverable as an item of costs
Ratio Decidendi
The court taxed off VAT because there was no taxable supply between the parties and the costs were party-and-party costs, not counsel’s income. It allowed only items proved by receipts or otherwise justified under the Advocates Remuneration Order, including email service, attendances, and affidavits of service, and then assessed the bill at Kshs. 158,885.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 05th May 2026 allowed with modifications and taxed at Kshs. 158,885/=.
Orders
- Item B on VAT taxed off.
- Item 1 allowed as drawn.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT BUNGOMA** **CIVIL CASE NO. E261 OF 2025** **GODFREY MAYENDE BARASA…………..…………..………….……………………………….PLAINTIFF** **VERSUS** **ABIUD WAMALWA…….……………….…………..…………………DEFENDANT** **RULING** 1. This ruling determines the Plaintiff’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 05th May 2026. This court has given due regard to the Bill of Costs as well as the Defendant’s written submissions. 2. The items objected by the Defendant have been assessed as hereunder. **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 1 was assessed as drawn as evidenced by the court fees receipt on record. 2. Item 2 was assessed off for want of proof. 3. Item 4 was assessed at Kshs. 500/= per the court fees receipt on record. 4. Items 2 and 5 were assessed off for want of proof. 5. Item 4 was assessed off for want of proof. **Service** 1. Items 7 – 11 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.”* **Attendances** 1. Items 18 and 19 were assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= each as drawn per Schedule 7(6) of the ARO. **Drawing and Filing of Affidavits of Service** 1. Items 20 – 26 were assessed at Kshs. 1,000/= each as drawn 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 05th May 2026 is assessed at Kshs. 158,885/=. **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 Mr. Mirembe for the Defendant C/A: Mr. Rioba