Odero v Naran & 3 others (Civil Suit E114 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 747 (KLR) (7 May 2026) (Ruling)
The bill was taxed by applying the Advocates Remuneration Order to the proven items only: instruction fees were reduced to 85% of Kshs. 65,000 because the matter settled before confirmation of first hearing, e-mail service attracted Kshs. 1,400 per item, and only attendances evidenced on record were allowed....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEMC 747 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: MICHAEL OMONDI ODERO; Defendant: JAYNITH MANILAL NARAN; Defendant: 4th Defendant; Defendant: 3rd Defendant
- Court
- Magistrate's Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit E114 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Party and Party Bill of Costs Taxation Ruling / Ruling on the 4th Defendant’s Bill of Costs
- Outcome
- 4th Defendant’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 08th April 2026 allowed in part and assessed at Kshs. 67,450.
- Judges
- ["TO Omono"]
- Legal Topics
- Party and Party Costs, Advocates Remuneration Order, Instruction Fees, Service by Email, Attendance Fees, Bill of Costs Assessment
- 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 OMONDI ODERO
Plaintiff
JAYNITH MANILAL NARAN
Defendant
4th Defendant
Defendant
3rd Defendant
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Party and Party Bill of Costs Taxation Ruling / Ruling on the 4th Defendant’s Bill of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 What instruction fee was payable for a suit settled before confirmation of the first hearing
- 2 Whether e-mail service attracts recoverable service fees
- 3 Which items on the bill of costs were supported by proof
Ratio Decidendi
The bill was taxed by applying the Advocates Remuneration Order to the proven items only: instruction fees were reduced to 85% of Kshs. 65,000 because the matter settled before confirmation of first hearing, e-mail service attracted Kshs. 1,400 per item, and only attendances evidenced on record were allowed. Unsupported items were taxed off. The resulting total was Kshs. 67,450.
Court Disposition
4th Defendant’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 08th April 2026 allowed in part and assessed at Kshs. 67,450.
Orders
- Items 3, 16, and 18 taxed off for want of proof.
- Item 1 allowed at Kshs. 55,250.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT BUNGOMA** **CIVIL SUIT NO. E114 OF 2025** **MICHAEL OMONDI ODERO……………………………………………….………PLAINTIFF** **VERSUS** **JAYNITH MANILAL NARAN & 3 OTHERS…………………………………….DEFENDANT** **RULING** 1. This ruling determines the 4th Defendant’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 08th April 2026. 2. Items 3, 16, and 18 were assessed off for want of proof. **Instruction Fees** 1. The value of the subject matter is Kshs. 398,014/=. The suit between the Plaintiff and the 4th Defendant was settled before confirmation of the first hearing. Schedule 7(1)(c) of the Advocates Remuneration Order (ARO) provides that instruction fees in such an instance will be 85% of Kshs. 65,000/= which equals to Kshs. 55,250/=. 2. Given the above, item 1 was assessed at Kshs. 55,250/= **Filing Fees** 1. Items 15 and 17 were assessed as drawn as evidenced by the court fees receipts on record. **Service** 1. Service in items 2 & 4 was conducted via e-mail. In **Aoro v Were (Miscellaneous Reference Application E019 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 14628 (KLR),** Aburili, J, 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.* 1. Guided by the authority above, items 2 & 4 were assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= each. **Attendances** 1. Items 5, 6, 8 & 14 were assessed off since there is no evidence on record to show that the 4th Defendant or his counsel attended court on those occasions. 2. The remaining items on attendance were assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= each per schedule 7(6) of the ARO. **DETERMINATION** 1. For the reasons above, the 4th Defendant’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 08th April 2026 is assessed at Kshs. 67,450/=. **Read, signed, and delivered in open court at Bungoma, this 07th day of May 2026** **T.O. OMONO** **SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE** **In the presence of:** Ms. Lang’at for the Plaintiff Mr. Nyolei for the 4th Defendant Ms. Maina for the 3rd Defendant C/A: Rioba