Integrity Security Group (EA) Ltd v Simiyu t/a Silk Sports Lounge (Civil Suit E013 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 558 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Bungoma court cut a litigant's recoverable costs to Kshs 135,300, confirming VAT and unproven items can't be claimed in Kenyan party-and-party bills.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether VAT is claimable in a party and party bill of costs
VAT (Item B) was disallowed following Pyramid Motors Limited v Langata Gardens Limited.
The court relied on the Pyramid Motors authority to hold that VAT is not permissible as a claimable item in a party and party bill of costs, and therefore struck off Item B.
Whether unprovided-for and unproved items can be allowed
Items not provided for under Schedule 7 of the ARO, and items lacking proof, were assessed off.
The court held that the demand letter fee was not provided under Schedule 7 of the ARO and that no evidence showed payment of Kshs. 39,062/=; Item 3 was likewise disallowed for want of proof, and Item 22 for absence of evidence of a sitting.
Assessment of service and attendance items
Service items were allowed at Kshs. 2,000/= per Schedule 7(6) considering distance; attendances allowed at Kshs. 1,400/= each; Item 26 allowed as drawn to scale.
Where the Defendant's counsel attended court, service of hearing and mention notices was unnecessary, so Items 8–11 and consequential affidavit-filing Items 33–36 were struck off. Distance between Bungoma and Webuye justified Kshs. 2,000/= for Items 6 and 7.
Legal principles established
#- Value Added Tax is not payable as an item in a Party and Party Bill of Costs, per Pyramid Motors Limited v Langata Gardens Limited
- Filing fees for a demand letter are not provided for under Schedule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order and must be proved to be allowed
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 17th April 2026 is assessed at Kshs. 135,300/=.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Taxation of a Party and Party Bill of Costs under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Integrity Security Group (EA) Ltd v Simiyu t/a Silk Sports Lounge (Civil Suit E013 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 558 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Suit No E013 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/558/eng@2026-07-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.