https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/642
The court taxed the disputed bills by allowing only proved and properly chargeable items, disallowing unproved service items, applying Kshs. 1,400 for email service in line with binding precedent, and taxing attendances at the prescribed rate under the Advocates Remuneration Order, thereby arriving at Kshs. 119,400...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEMC 642 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiffs: TRAVIS JOHN OMONDI KISACHE & ANOTHER; Defendant: YUNNAN INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD
- Court
- Magistrate's Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit E041 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit; Taxation/ruling on Party and Party Bills of Costs / Ruling on Plaintiffs' Party and Party Bills of Costs Dated 23rd March 2026
- Outcome
- Bills of costs assessed; partly allowed and partly disallowed
- Judges
- ["TO Omono"]
- Legal Topics
- Party and Party Costs, Assessment of Bill of Costs, Service by Email, Attendances, Advocates Remuneration Order
- 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
TRAVIS JOHN OMONDI KISACHE & ANOTHER
Plaintiffs
YUNNAN INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit; Taxation/ruling on Party and Party Bills of Costs / Ruling on Plaintiffs' Party and Party Bills of Costs Dated 23rd March 2026
Legal Issues
- 1 What amounts were recoverable under the Plaintiffs' Party and Party Bills of Costs
- 2 Whether items relating to service by email were proved and how they should be taxed
- 3 What fee was proper for attendances under the Advocates Remuneration Order
Ratio Decidendi
The court taxed the disputed bills by allowing only proved and properly chargeable items, disallowing unproved service items, applying Kshs. 1,400 for email service in line with binding precedent, and taxing attendances at the prescribed rate under the Advocates Remuneration Order, thereby arriving at Kshs. 119,400 for each bill of costs.
Court Disposition
Bills of costs assessed; partly allowed and partly disallowed
Orders
- Items 5 and 6 under service were struck out for want of proof.
- Items 3, 4 and 7 under service were taxed at Kshs. 1,400 each.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT BUNGOMA** **CIVIL SUIT NO. E041 & E046 OF 2025** **TRAVIS JOHN OMONDI KISACHE & ANOTHER………………………….PLAINTIFFS** **VERSUS** **YUNNAN INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD………………...DEFENDANT** **RULING** 1. This ruling determines the Plaintiffs’ Party and Party Bills of Costs dated 23rd March 2026 filed in Bungoma CMCC Nos. E041 and E046 all of 2025 (“the suits”). 2. This court has given due regard to the Plaintiffs’ Party and Party Bills of Costs as well as the Defendant’s written submissions on record. 3. The items objected to by the Defendant have been assessed as set out below. **Service** 1. Items 5 and 6 were assessed off for want of proof. 2. Items 3, 4, & 7 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 9 and 10 were assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= each per schedule 7(6) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order (ARO). **DETERMINATION** 1. The upshot of the foregoing is that the Plaintiffs' Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 23rd March 2026 in the suits were assessed at Kshs. 119,400/= each. **Read, signed, and delivered in open court at Bungoma, this 30th day of June 2026** **T.O. OMONO** **SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE** **In the presence of:** Ms. Kinyanjui for the Defendant C/A: Rioba