Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistratePartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KEMC 298 (KLR)

Mithamo v Maina (Civil Case E107 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 298 (KLR)

Magistrates' Court
13 July 2026
DNDaniel Ngayo
503 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

#

A Nanyuki Magistrate's Court cut a litigant's costs claim by about Kshs. 9,600 because one item lacked proof, assessing the bill at Kshs. 124,789.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a taxation ruling by Hon. Daniel Ngayo, Senior Resident Magistrate, delivered virtually at Nanyuki on 13th July 2026. Before the court was the Plaintiff's party and party bill of costs dated 18th February 2026, in which the Plaintiff sought assessment at Kshs. 134,389/=. The Defendant filed no response, and the court proceeded to assess the bill on the principles of taxation. The court applied Schedule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014, and adopted the four principles set out by the Court of Appeal in Premchand Raichand vs. Quary Services EA Ltd: that costs should not confine access to the courts to the wealthy; that a successful litigant should be fairly reimbursed; that advocate remuneration should attract recruits to the profession; and that there should be consistency in awards. The court also took into account the principles in Republic vs. Minister for Agriculture Exparte Samuel Muchiri W/Njuguna, as approved by the High Court in Kyalo Mbobu v Jacob Juma, on the cogent specification of factors guiding the taxing officer's discretion. On assessment, item 2 was allowed at Kshs. 1,400/= and item 30 was taxed off for want of proof. The remaining items were found to be drawn to scale and neither exorbitant nor unreasonable. The bill was assessed at Kshs. 124,789/=. The claim was thus partially allowed, the total falling short of the sum sought by Kshs. 9,600/=. No separate costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Assessment of the Plaintiff's party and party bill of costs

Holding

The bill was assessed at Kshs. 124,789/= rather than the Kshs. 134,389/= sought, with item 30 taxed off for lack of proof and the remaining items found drawn to scale

Reasoning

The court applied the principles in Premchand Raichand vs. Quary Services EA Ltd and Republic vs. Minister for Agriculture Exparte Samuel Muchiri W/Njuguna, considered the schedule of allowable fees under the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014, allowed item 2 at Kshs. 1,400/=, struck off item 30 for want of proof, and found the other items neither exorbitant nor unreasonable.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Costs in taxation should be guided by the principles that costs should not confine access to courts to the wealthy, a successful litigant ought to be fairly reimbursed, remuneration of advocates should attract recruits to the profession, and there should be consistency in awards
  • The taxing officer's discretion must be guided by specified cogent factors including novelty, industry deployed and volume of documentation

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Item 2 of the bill assessed at Kshs. 1,400/=
  2. 2.Item 30 taxed off for want of proof
  3. 3.The Plaintiff's party and party bill of costs assessed at a total sum of Kshs. 124,789/=

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) OrderSchedule 7

Cases cited (3)

  • Premchand Raichand vs. Quary Services EA Ltd
  • Republic vs. Minister for Agriculture Exparte Samuel Muchiri W/Njuguna
  • Kyalo Mbobu T/A Kyalo & Associates Advocates v Jacob Juma
Jurisdiction invoked
Taxation of party and party bill of costs under Schedule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mithamo v Maina (Civil Case E107 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 298 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/298/eng@2026-07-13

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