Makhanu v Abdullahi & another (Civil Case E266 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 652 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Bungoma court cut a Kshs. 61,600 costs bill, ruling e-mail service counts as valid service but unproven expenses and future disbursements are not recoverable.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Instruction fees for prosecuting an application
Item 2 assessed at Kshs. 5,000/=, above the Kshs. 3,000/= minimum, considering the nature of the application and time taken
Schedule 7(5) of the ARO prescribes a minimum of Kshs. 3,000/= for prosecuting or defending an application. The court exercised discretion to enhance the fee to Kshs. 5,000/= in light of the nature of the application dated 09th December 2025 and the time taken to prosecute it.
Attendance fees where no hearing took place
Items 5 and 8 assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= each per Schedule 7(6) of the ARO
Because no hearing took place on those occasions, the attendance items could not attract higher fees and were assessed at the lower rate prescribed by Schedule 7(6) of the ARO.
Cost of service by e-mail
Service by e-mail attracts Kshs. 1,400/= per item, following Aoro v Were
Adopting 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, the court assessed items 11 and 12 (e-mail service) at Kshs. 1,400/= each. Order 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies mutatis mutandis to service of other court processes.
Service costs claimed without receipts
Item 9 assessed at Kshs. 10,000/= despite a claim of Kshs. 36,000/= for lack of receipts, guided by Schedule 7(10)
The Plaintiff claimed Kshs. 36,000/= for service between Bungoma and Mombasa but produced no receipts to prove the expenditure. Guided by Schedule 7(10) of the ARO and factoring the distance, the court assessed the item at Kshs. 10,000/=.
Legal principles established
#- Service via e-mail is valid service and attracts an award of Kshs. 1,400 under Paragraph 10 of Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
- Disbursements not yet incurred at the time of taxation cannot be awarded but remain recoverable in execution upon proof of payment
Court orders
#- 1.Item 2 (instruction fees) assessed at Kshs. 5,000/= per Schedule 7(5) of the ARO
- 2.Items 5 and 8 (attendances) assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= each per Schedule 7(6) of the ARO
- 3.Item 9 (service, Bungoma to Mombasa) assessed at Kshs. 10,000/= per Schedule 7(10) of the ARO
- 4.Item 10 (service of mention notice) assessed off
- 5.Items 11 and 12 (service by e-mail) assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= each
- 6.Item 13 assessed off for want of proof
- 7.Item 18 (disbursement) assessed off as expenditure not yet incurred
- 8.The Plaintiff's Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 08th April 2026 assessed at Kshs. 61,600/= each
- 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, "Makhanu v Abdullahi & another (Civil Case E266 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 652 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the ruling. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/652/eng@2026-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.