Juma v Albrima General Cargo Limited (Civil Case E176 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 613 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Bungoma court taxed costs at Kshs. 66,650 but cut them to Kshs. 53,320 because the winning party only won 80% of the case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Instruction fees on taxation where suit proceeded by formal proof
Minimum instruction fees computed at 65% of the lower scale (65% of Kshs. 15,000/= being Kshs. 9,750/=), but the court assessed item A at Kshs. 15,000/= considering the nature of the suit and time taken.
The subject matter was valued at Kshs. 94,272/=. Because the Defendant neither entered appearance nor filed a defence and the matter proceeded by formal proof, Schedule 7(1)(a) of the ARO applies, pegging instruction fees at 65% of the lower scale. The court nonetheless assessed item A at Kshs. 15,000/= in light of the nature of the suit and the time taken to conclude it.
VAT on party and party costs
VAT is not chargeable on the costs awarded to the Plaintiff; item B was assessed off.
VAT is chargeable only on taxable supplies of goods or services between parties. There was no taxable supply between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; the costs arising are the Plaintiff's costs of the suit, not the counsel's income attracting VAT. Accordingly item B was struck off in line with Pyramid Motors and KCB v Stagecoach.
Effect of divided success on the scale of costs
Costs due to the Plaintiff reduced from Kshs. 66,650/= to Kshs. 53,320/=, being 80% of the assessed amount, reflecting the 80%:20% apportionment of liability.
Liability in the suit had been apportioned 80%:20% in favour of the Plaintiff. Note 3 under Schedule 7 of the ARO permits distribution of the scale where success is divided. Applying that note to the assessed total of Kshs. 66,650/=, the costs due to the Plaintiff were computed at 80%, namely Kshs. 53,320/=.
Legal principles established
#- Where a defendant neither enters appearance nor files a defence and the matter proceeds by formal proof, Schedule 7(1)(a) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order provides for 65% of instruction fees pegged on the lower scale.
- Costs of a suit due to a successful party are not the party's counsel's income attracting VAT, and therefore do not attract VAT.
- Where success in a suit is divided, the scale of costs may be distributed having regard to partial success on either side.
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 23rd March 2026 assessed at Kshs. 66,650/=
- 2.Having regard to the 80%:20% apportionment of liability in favour of the Plaintiff, costs due to the Plaintiff assessed at Kshs. 53,320/=
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Taxation of a Party and Party Bill of Costs under Schedule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Juma v Albrima General Cargo Limited (Civil Case E176 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 613 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/613/eng@2026-07-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.