Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistrateOtherNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KEMC 39 (KLR)

Waweru v Directline Assurance Company Limited (Civil Suit E992 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 39 (KLR)

Subordinate Court (Magistrates' Court), Nakuru
10 February 2026
ANAloyce Peter Ndege
449 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first-instance taxation ruling by a Senior Principal Magistrate at Nakuru in a suit that was compromised or settled before a hearing date was taken. The parties failed to agree on costs, and the defendant asked the court to review the plaintiff's party and party bill of costs, challenging item 1 (instruction fees) and item 12 (attendance). The court held that, the suit having been settled before confirmation of a hearing date, instruction fees fell to be assessed under Schedule 7, Part A, Items 1(b) and 1(c) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014. Taking the value of the subject matter as Kshs. 359,645/-, the normal instruction fee is Kshs. 45,000/-; applying the percentage reductions under Items 1(b) and 1(c), the court assessed instruction fees at Kshs. 28,687.50. On attendances, the court found the plaintiff attended seven mentions between 04/12/24 and 23/01/26 and taxed attendance at Kshs. 1,400 per mention, totalling Kshs. 9,800/-. No grievance was raised on the remaining items, which were allowed as claimed. The court varied the undated bill filed electronically on 02/07/2025 by allowing all items except the instruction fees (assessed at Kshs. 28,687.50) and by expunging the attendances in items 11-16 and replacing them with the assessed attendances of Kshs. 9,800/-. The plaintiff's party and party bill of costs was finally assessed at Kshs. 52,037.50. No case authorities were cited and no separate costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Instruction fees on a compromised suit

Holding

The applicable fee is computed by applying Item 1(b) (75% of the normal fee for a suit determined without full trial) and then Item 1(c), yielding Kshs. 28,687.50 on a subject matter valued at Kshs. 359,645/-

Reasoning

Because the suit was compromised before a hearing date was taken, Schedule 7, Part A applies. The normal instruction fee for a suit of value Kshs. 359,645/- is Kshs. 45,000/-. The court first computed 75% under Item 1(b), then applied Item 1(c), arriving at Kshs. 28,687.50.

p. 1
02

Attendances in the bill of costs

Holding

Only attendances actually made before the subordinate court are taxable; the plaintiff attended 7 mentions, assessed at Kshs. 1,400 each, totalling Kshs. 9,800/-

Reasoning

The defendant challenged the attendance items. The court counted the mentions attended (04/12/24 through 23/01/26) and taxed attendance at Kshs. 1,400 per mention, expunging the attendances claimed in items 11-16 of the bill.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a suit is settled before confirmation of the first hearing date, instruction fees are 75% of the fee chargeable where a suit is determined without full trial, per Schedule 7, Part A, Items 1(b) and 1(c) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Instruction fees in item no. 1 assessed at Kshs. 28,687.50
  2. 2.Attendances in items 11-16 expunged and replaced with attendances assessed at Kshs. 9,800/-
  3. 3.All other items in the bill allowed as sought
  4. 4.Plaintiff's Party and Party bill of costs assessed at Kshs. 52,037.50

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014Schedule 7, Part A, Item 1(b) and Item 1(c)
Jurisdiction invoked
Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014 - taxation/review of a party and party bill of costs

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Waweru v Directline Assurance Company Limited (Civil Suit E992 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 39 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/39/eng@2026-02-10

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.