https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/182
The court assessed the plaintiff’s costs by applying Schedule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014 because the judgment sum was Kshs. 18,900/=, which falls below Kshs. 50,000/=. The decretal sum could not be taxed as costs and had to be pursued by execution. Service charges were allowed at the prescribed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEMC 182 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Michael Irungu Kamau; Defendant: Jane Nyambura Maina
- Court
- Magistrate's Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit E062 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Assessment/taxation of Costs
- Outcome
- Costs assessed in favour of the plaintiff.
- Judges
- ["GK Waithira"]
- Legal Topics
- Assessment of Party and Party Costs, Applicable Scale Under Schedule 7, Disbursements and Service Fees, Execution for Decretal Sum
- 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
Michael Irungu Kamau
Plaintiff
Jane Nyambura Maina
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Assessment/taxation of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 What scale applied to the plaintiff’s costs after judgment for Kshs. 18,900/=.
- 2 Which items in the bill/request were allowable, disallowable, or had to be scaled.
- 3 Whether claimed travel and subsistence expenses were proved.
Ratio Decidendi
The court assessed the plaintiff’s costs by applying Schedule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014 because the judgment sum was Kshs. 18,900/=, which falls below Kshs. 50,000/=. The decretal sum could not be taxed as costs and had to be pursued by execution. Service charges were allowed at the prescribed rate, but additional travel and subsistence expenses were disallowed absent proof. The assessed total was Kshs. 32,500/=.
Court Disposition
Costs assessed in favour of the plaintiff.
Orders
- Item 1 assessed at Kshs. 15,000/=.
- Item 2 disallowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Kamau v Maina (Civil Suit E062 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 182 (KLR) (24 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 182 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Murang'a Law Courts Civil Suit E062 of 2025 GK Waithira, SRM June 24, 2026 Between Michael Irungu Kamau Plaintiff and Jane Nyambura Maina Defendant Ruling 1.The plaintiff has sought assessment of his costs vide a request dated 10th March 2026. The suit was filed against the defendant on 10th April 2025 and judgment entered in his favor for a sum of Kshs. 18,900/=. The defendant did not oppose the application for assessment of costs despite service. This court will nevertheless assess the plaintiff’s costs in accordance with Order 21, rule 9A of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicable scale will be Schedule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration (Amendment) Order, 2014 (herein “the Schedule”). 2.The Schedule provides a fee of Kshs. 15,000/= at paragraph 1 where the sum found due does not exceed Kshs. 50,000/=. Item 1 is therefore assessed at Kshs. 15,000/=. 3.The sum of Kshs. 18,900/= awarded by the court should be pursued through the usual execution proceedings. Item 2 of the request is therefore disallowed. 4.The schedule provides a sum of Kshs. 1,400/= for service within 3 kilometers of the court. For Any extra travelling and subsistence expenses incurred by the process server, paragraph 10 provides that the actual expense should be paid. As no proof of extra expenses has been furnished to the court, items 8 to 10 are assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= each. 5.The plaintiff has sought disbursements for filing the request for assessment for costs at item 7. The same is assessed at Kshs. 500/= based on the receipt on record. 6.Items 3 to 6 and 11 to 16 are drawn to scale and are therefore allowed as prayed. 7.Taking all the foregoing into account, the plaintiff’s costs are assessed at Kshs. 32,500/=. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.HON. GRACE WAITHĨRASENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATERuling read in the presence ofC/A JeremiahMR. Njogu For The PlaintiffDefendant later at 11:02 a.m. in open court