Barasa v Wamalwa (Civil Case E261 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 562 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Bungoma magistrate taxed a winning party's costs at Kshs. 158,885 and refused to add VAT, holding court-awarded costs are not a taxable supply.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether VAT is payable on party and party costs
VAT was disallowed because the costs are the Plaintiff's costs of the suit, not counsel's income, and there was no taxable supply between the parties
The court reasoned that VAT attaches only to taxable supplies of goods or services. Between a litigant and the opposing party there is no supply; the costs awarded are the litigant's costs of the suit, not the advocate's income attracting VAT. It therefore struck off Item B, following Pyramid Motors and Kenya Commercial Bank v Stagecoach Management.
Assessment of items for service, attendances, filing fees and affidavits of service
Filing fees and certain items were allowed only as proved by receipts; e-mail service was allowed at Kshs. 1,400/= per item; attendances at Kshs. 1,400/= each and affidavits of service at Kshs. 1,000/= each per Schedule 7 of the ARO
Items supported by court fees receipts were allowed as drawn or at the receipted amount; items lacking proof were assessed off. E-mail service items were allowed at Kshs. 1,400/= each following Aoro v Were, and attendances and affidavits of service were allowed at the tariff amounts in Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
Legal principles established
#- Costs of a suit due to a litigant are the litigant's costs of the suit and do not attract VAT absent a taxable supply between the parties
- Service via e-mail constitutes valid service and attracts an award of Kshs. 1,400/= per item under Paragraph 10 of Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Court orders
#- 1.Item B (VAT) assessed off
- 2.Item 1 assessed as drawn; Item 2 assessed off for want of proof
- 3.Item 4 assessed at Kshs. 500/=; other items assessed off for want of proof
- 4.Items 7–11 (service via e-mail) assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= each
- 5.Items 18 and 19 assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= each as drawn
- 6.Items 20–26 assessed at Kshs. 1,000/= each as drawn
- 7.The Plaintiff's Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 05th May 2026 assessed at Kshs. 158,885/=
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Taxation of a Party and Party Bill of Costs under the Advocates Remuneration Order and the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Barasa v Wamalwa (Civil Case E261 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 562 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/562/eng@2026-07-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.