https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/775

Barasa & another v Abdullahi & another (Civil Case E267 & E268 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEMC 775 (KLR) (23 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 775 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Bungoma Law Courts Civil Case E267 & E268 of 2025 (Consolidated) TO Omono, SRM July 23, 2026 Between Ronald Wanjala Barasa & Another Plaintiff and Mohammed Abdullahi & Another Defendant Ruling 1.This ruling determines the Plaintiffs’ Party and Party Bills of Costs dated 08th April 2026 filed in Bungoma CMC CC Nos. E267 and E268 all of 2025 (“the series”) since the said Bills of Costs seek similar costs arising from similar proceedings. 2.This court has given due regard to the Plaintiffs' Bills of Costs on record as well as the Replying Affidavit sworn by the Defendants’ counsel on 08th June 2026. 3.The items objected to by the Defendants have been assessed as hereunder. Instruction Fees 4.Schedule 7(5) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order (ARO) provides for a minimum instruction fees of Kshs. 3,000/= for prosecuting or defending an Application. Considering the nature of the Application dated 09th December 2025 and the time taken to prosecute the same, items 2 in both Bills of Costs in the series are assessed at Kshs. 5,000/= each. Attendances 5.Items 5 and 8 in both Bills of Costs in the series are assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= each per Schedule 7(6) of the ARO given that no hearing took place on those occasions. Service 6.Given the distance between Bungoma and Mombasa, and guided by Schedule 7(10) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order (ARO), items 9 in both Bills of Costs are assessed at Kshs. 10,000/= each. 7.Items 10 in both Bills of Costs in the series are assessed off since there was no need to serve a mention notice given that the mention date on that occasion was taken by consent. 8.Items 11 and 12 in both Bills of Costs in the series involved service by e-mail. Therefore, the said items are 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.” 9.Items 13 in both Bills of Costs in the series are assessed off for want of proof. Disbursements 10.Items 18 in both Bills of Costs in the series are assessed off since those claims are yet to be incurred by the Plaintiffs at the time of assessing the costs due to the Plaintiffs. In any event, such costs are recoverable during execution upon proof of payment. Determination 11.The upshot of the foregoing is that the Plaintiffs’ Party and Party Bills of Costs dated 08th April 2026 filed in the series are assessed at Kshs. 71,600/= each. READ, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT BUNGOMA, THIS 23RD DAY OF JULY 2026T.O. OMONOSENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATEIn the presence of:Ms. Nekesa h/b for Wamalwa for the PlaintiffC/A: Mr. Rioba