Kamau v Maina (Civil Suit E062 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 182 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Murang'a court assessed the winning party's legal costs at Kshs. 32,500, trimming claims that lacked proof or sought the judgment debt itself.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Assessment of costs where the request is unopposed
The court proceeds to assess costs on the applicable scale notwithstanding the defendant's failure to oppose
Despite service and the defendant's non-attendance or non-opposition, the court does not simply grant the request as unopposed. It independently assesses each item against Schedule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014, disallowing or reducing items not supported by the scale or by proof, such as unproved process-server expenses and a claim properly pursued by execution.
Applicable scale for a decretal sum not exceeding Kshs. 50,000/-
Paragraph 1 of the Schedule provides Kshs. 15,000/= where the sum found due does not exceed Kshs. 50,000/=; with the decretal sum at Kshs. 18,900/=, item 1 is assessed at Kshs. 15,000/=
The court identifies Schedule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014 as the applicable fee schedule. Paragraph 1 fixes the instruction fee at Kshs. 15,000/= for sums up to Kshs. 50,000/=. Since the judgment sum was Kshs. 18,900/=, that item falls within the lowest band and is assessed at Kshs. 15,000/=.
Recovery of the decretal sum
The awarded sum of Kshs. 18,900/= must be pursued through ordinary execution, not through the costs assessment
The request for assessment of costs cannot be used to recover the judgment debt itself. The court holds that the decretal sum is enforceable only through the usual execution proceedings and consequently strikes out item 2 of the request as misconceived in the context of a costs assessment.
Legal principles established
#- Costs are assessed under Order 21, rule 9A of the Civil Procedure Rules even where unopposed, using the applicable Advocates (Remuneration) Order scale
- Extra travelling and subsistence expenses of a process server must be proved before they can be allowed
Court orders
#- 1.Item 1 of the request assessed at Kshs. 15,000/= under paragraph 1 of the Schedule
- 2.Item 2 disallowed, the decretal sum of Kshs. 18,900/= to be pursued through execution proceedings
- 3.Items 8 to 10 assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= each as service fees, no proof of extra travelling and subsistence expenses having been furnished
- 4.Item 7, disbursement for filing the request for assessment of costs, assessed at Kshs. 500/= based on the receipt on record
- 5.Items 3 to 6 and 11 to 16 allowed as prayed, being drawn to scale
- 6.Plaintiff's costs assessed at Kshs. 32,500/=
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 21, rule 9A of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamau v Maina (Civil Suit E062 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 182 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/182/eng@2026-06-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.