[2023] KECPT 855 (KLR)
The tribunal found that the claimant, having acted in person, was required to provide evidence for the amounts claimed in the Bill of Costs. The tribunal exercised its discretion to allow only those items that were supported by proof, specifically certain disbursements, transport, lunch, and process server costs....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KECPT 855 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph Muriuki Mwaniki; Respondent: Fortune Sacco Limited
- Court
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case 297 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Bill of Costs Application / Ruling on Assessment of Costs
- Outcome
- Claimant's Bill of Costs partially allowed; costs assessed at Kshs. 29,365.
- Judges
- BM Kimemia, J. Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
- Legal Topics
- Costs Assessment, Party in Person Costs, Bill of Costs, Disbursements, Tribunal Discretion
- 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
Joseph Muriuki Mwaniki
Applicant
Fortune Sacco Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Bill of Costs Application / Ruling on Assessment of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant, acting in person, is entitled to the costs claimed in the Bill of Costs.
- 2 Whether the items claimed in the Bill of Costs are supported by evidence and legally recoverable.
- 3 Whether the tribunal has discretion to assess costs in the absence of proof for certain items.
Ratio Decidendi
The tribunal found that the claimant, having acted in person, was required to provide evidence for the amounts claimed in the Bill of Costs. The tribunal exercised its discretion to allow only those items that were supported by proof, specifically certain disbursements, transport, lunch, and process server costs. Items without legal basis or sufficient evidence, as well as costs relating to other courts, were disallowed and taxed at NIL. The tribunal emphasized that assessment of costs for a party acting in person is distinct from taxation and must be based on actual proof of expenditure. The total costs allowed to the claimant were Kshs. 29,365, reflecting only the substantiated claims.
Court Disposition
Claimant's Bill of Costs partially allowed; costs assessed at Kshs. 29,365.
Orders
- Claimant's Bill of Costs is assessed at Kshs. 29,365.
- Items not proved or outside tribunal jurisdiction are taxed at NIL.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
Mwaniki v Fortune Sacco Limited (Tribunal Case 297 of 2019) [2023] KECPT 855 (KLR) (31 August 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KECPT 855 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Cooperative Tribunal
Tribunal Case 297 of 2019
BM Kimemia, Chair, J. Mwatsama, Vice Chair, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw & PO Aol, Members
August 31, 2023
Between
Joseph Muriuki Mwaniki
Claimant
and
Fortune Sacco Limited
Respondent
Ruling
1. The matter for determination is a Bill of Cost June 4, 2021, Amended Bill of Cost dated June 14, 2021 filed on 29. 7.2021. The same is opposed vide the reply dated 20. 5.2022.
2. We have considered the submissions of the parties in the Bill of Cost and the Response and note that the Claimant was acting in person up to the stage of Entry of Judgment. The advocate Gichuki Wanyohi & Company advocates filed a Notice of Appointment of advocates dated 4. 6.2021 after Entry of Judgment on 6. 5.2021. The advocate thereafter filed an Application dated 15. 7.2021. The advocate for the Respondent filed a Preliminary Objection dated 13. 7.2021. The Claimant filed written submissions dated 23. 11. 2021.
3. We note that the Claimant represented himself hence the matter is coming up for the assessment of costs as apposed to the taxation.
4. In assessment of costs, the Claimant having acted in person therefore should have provided the evidence of the amounts claimed in the said Bill of Costs. The assessment of the Party’s Bill of Cost is an accordance to the discretion of the Tribunal and based on the proof of the stated amounts. We therefore assess the said Bill of Cost as follows:1. Items 1-15 are hereby declined since there is no legal basis of the items, this being an assessment of costs incurred during the trial. These are therefore taxed at NIL.2. Items 16 and 17- the tribunal cannot assess costs of another court hence these items are taxed at NIL.3. Disbursements items 18, at Kshs. 3440/=, 21 at Kshs. 75/=, 23, at Kshs. 150/= are allowed total Kshs. 3665/= .4. (a)Items 19 at Kshs. 1500/=, 22 ,26,31,33 and 35 transport and lunch costs assessed at Kshs. 2000/= x 5 = Kshs. 10,000/=.(b)items 24,27,34,36 and 39 transport and lunch costs assessed at Kshs. 2000/=x5= Kshs. 10,000/=. Total Kshs. 21,500/= allowed. There is no proof of accommodation.5. Process server costs items 20,29 and 32 assessed at Kshs. 1400/= each x3= Kshs. 4200/= allowed.6. All the other items in the list have not been proved hence they are all taxed off at NIL.In summary, the Bill of Costs is assessed as follows:1. Item 1- NIL2. Item 2 – NIL3. Item 3- Kshs. 3665/=4. Item 4- Kshs. 21,500/=5. Item 5- Kshs. 4200/=Total Kshs. 29,365/=We therefore assess the Claimant’s costs at Kshs. 29,365/=.
RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023. HON. BEATRICE KIMEMIA CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 31. 8.2023HON. J. MWATSAMA DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SIGNED 31. 8.2023HON. BEATRICE SAWE MEMBER SIGNED 31. 8.2023HON. FRIDAH LOTUIYA MEMBER SIGNED 31. 8.2023HON. PHILIP GICHUKI MEMBER SIGNED 31. 8.2023HON. MICHAEL CHESIKAW MEMBER SIGNED 31. 8.2023HON. PAUL AOL MEMBER SIGNED 31. 8.2023TRIBUNAL CLERK JEMIMAHKamau advocate holding brief for Kibue for the Respondent.Wanjohi advocate for the Claimant.