Wanyonyi v Ambrose & others (Civil Suit E260 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 719 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Bungoma court awarded Kshs. 97,100 in legal costs but refused to add VAT or unproven filing fees — claimants must prove every item.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Instruction fees on a defended suit that went to full hearing
Instruction fees assessed as drawn at Kshs. 45,000/=, above the statutory minimum of Kshs. 40,000/=, being reasonable given the time taken to conclude the matter
The subject matter was valued at Kshs. 115,200/=. Schedule 7(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order sets a minimum of Kshs. 40,000/= where a suit is defended and proceeds to full hearing. The Plaintiff claimed Kshs. 45,000/=. The court considered the duration of the matter and found the claimed sum reasonable, allowing item A as drawn.
Entitlement to VAT in a Party and Party Bill of Costs
VAT was taxed off; a litigant is not entitled to VAT in a Party and Party Bill absent proof of taxable supply or payment of VAT
Costs in a Party and Party Bill belong to the litigant, not the advocate. Relying on Pyramid Motors Ltd v Langata Gardens Ltd and Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd v Stagecoach Management Ltd, the court held VAT applies only where there is a taxable supply between the parties or proof the litigant paid VAT. Since the law firm, not the litigant, is the VAT-paying entity, item B was taxed off.
Service fees under Schedule 7(10)(i) of the ARO
Service within Bungoma town assessed at Kshs. 2,000/= and service in Ndengelwa at Kshs. 3,000/=, guided by the minimum fee of Kshs. 1,400/= for service within three kilometres of the court
Item 5 involved service within Bungoma town, attracting the Schedule 7(10)(i) minimum of Kshs. 1,400/= for service within three kilometres of the court; the court allowed Kshs. 2,000/=. Item 6 involved service at Ndengelwa, a few kilometres from Bungoma; factoring the distance, the court allowed Kshs. 3,000/=.
Filing fees (items 2 & 3)
Taxed off for want of proof
The Plaintiff did not adduce proof of the filing fees claimed under items 2 and 3 of the Bill. In the absence of supporting evidence, the court disallowed both items in their entirety, applying the ordinary taxation principle that items must be proved to be allowed.
Legal principles established
#- VAT cannot be awarded in a Party and Party Bill of Costs unless a party proves it supplied taxable goods or services to the other party
- In a defended matter that proceeds to full hearing, Schedule 7(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order prescribes a minimum instruction fee of Kshs. 40,000/=, but the court may assess a reasonable higher amount considering the time taken
Court orders
#- 1.Item A (instruction fees) assessed as drawn at Kshs. 45,000/= on the ground that the amount is reasonable
- 2.Item B on VAT taxed off
- 3.Items 2 & 3 (filing fees) assessed off for want of proof
- 4.Item 5 (service within Bungoma town) assessed at Kshs. 2,000/=
- 5.Item 6 (service in Ndengelwa) assessed at Kshs. 3,000/=
- 6.The Plaintiff's Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 06th February 2026 assessed at Kshs. 97,100/=
- 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, "Wanyonyi v Ambrose & others (Civil Suit E260 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 719 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/719/eng@2026-04-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.