Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistrateOtherNot stated in judgment· [2026] KEMC 620 (KLR)

BWW (Suing Through Father and Next Friend EWB) v Getange & another (Civil Case E475 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 620 (KLR)

Magistrates' Court (Bungoma)
21 July 2026
TOT.O. Omono
568 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 Bungoma magistrate taxed a plaintiff's legal costs at Kshs. 108,440, ruling that court-awarded costs don't attract VAT but email service counts as valid service worth claiming.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by T.O. Omono, Senior Resident Magistrate at Bungoma, determines the Plaintiff's Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 22nd April 2026, against which the 2nd Defendant filed written objections. The court assessed instruction fees at Kshs. 45,000, slightly above the minimum of Kshs. 40,000 under Schedule 7(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order for subject matters valued between Kshs. 100,000 and Kshs. 200,000, having regard to the nature of the suit and time taken to conclude it. VAT on costs was disallowed on the reasoning that no taxable supply existed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and that costs of the suit are the Plaintiff's costs rather than counsel's income attracting VAT, following Pyramid Motors Ltd v Langata Gardens Ltd and Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd v Stagecoach Management Ltd. Several items (filing fees, unproved service items, and a duplicate item) were assessed off for want of proof or lack of provision under Schedule 7. Items involving service by e-mail were assessed at Kshs. 1,400 each, adopting Aburili J's holding in Aoro v Were that e-mail service is valid service attracting costs under Paragraph 10 of Schedule 7. Drawing and filing of affidavits of service (items 30-37) was assessed at Kshs. 1,000 each under Schedule 7(11). The Bill was ultimately assessed at Kshs. 108,440.

Key legal issues

#
01

Instruction fees

Holding

Instruction fees of Kshs. 45,000 were reasonable given the nature of the suit and time taken

Reasoning

Schedule 7(1) of the ARO provides minimum instruction fees of Kshs. 40,000 where the value of the subject matter is between Kshs. 100,000 and Kshs. 200,000. Considering the nature of the suit and the time taken to conclude it, the court found Kshs. 45,000 reasonable and assessed item A as drawn.

p. 1
02

VAT on costs

Holding

VAT was disallowed as there was no taxable supply between the parties

Reasoning

VAT is chargeable only where a party supplies taxable goods or services. Costs of the suit belong to the Plaintiff, not counsel's income, and therefore cannot attract VAT. The court followed Pyramid Motors and Kenya Commercial Bank v Stagecoach in assessing item B off.

p. 1
03

Cost of service by e-mail

Holding

Each e-mail service item was assessed at Kshs. 1,400 per Aoro v Were

Reasoning

Items 10-16 involved service via e-mail. Relying on Aburili J's holding in Aoro v Were that service via e-mail is still service and attracts Kshs. 1,400 under Paragraph 10 of Schedule 7 of the ARO, each item was assessed at Kshs. 1,400.

p. 2
04

Drawing and filing affidavits of service

Holding

Items 30-37 assessed at Kshs. 1,000 each per Schedule 7(11) of the ARO

Reasoning

The court applied Schedule 7(11) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order to assess the drawing and filing of affidavits of service at Kshs. 1,000 per item.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Costs awarded to a party do not attract VAT because they are the party's costs of the suit, not counsel's income
  • Service of documents via e-mail constitutes valid service attracting costs of Kshs. 1,400 per item under Schedule 7 of the ARO

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Item A (instruction fees) assessed as drawn at Kshs. 45,000
  2. 2.Item B (VAT) assessed off
  3. 3.Items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-16 (partly), 30-37 assessed as set out in the ruling
  4. 4.Plaintiff's Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 22nd April 2026 assessed at Kshs. 108,440
Jurisdiction invoked
Taxation of a Party and Party Bill of Costs under the Advocates (Remuneration) Order and Schedule 7 thereof

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "BWW (Suing Through Father and Next Friend EWB) v Getange & another (Civil Case E475 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 620 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/620/eng@2026-07-21

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