Lubisia v Trident Insurance Company (Civil Suit E161 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 751 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Bungoma court awarded a plaintiff Kshs. 206,000 in legal costs, confirming that serving court documents by email counts as valid service in Kenya.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Taxation of items claimed without proof of expenditure
Items not proved are taxed off; where there is evidence of service but no proof of the amount claimed, the court may exercise its discretion and assess a reduced amount
The court noted there was no documentation proving the Kshs. 10,000/= claimed in item 4, but there was evidence on record that the pleadings were served on the Defendant in Nairobi. The court therefore exercised its discretion and assessed the item at Kshs. 4,000/=. Items wholly unproved, such as item 5, were assessed off entirely.
Costs of service via e-mail
Service via e-mail is valid service attracting an award of Kshs. 1,400/= under Paragraph 10 of Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Relying on Aburili, J in Aoro v Were, the court accepted that Order 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies mutatis mutandis to service of other court processes, and that e-mail service, necessitated by the Covid-19 pandemic, remains valid service. Item 6 was accordingly assessed at Kshs. 1,400/=.
Attendance fees under Schedule 7 of the ARO
Attendance items are assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= each per Schedule 7(7)(6), and a hearing not taking a full day is assessed at half-day rate of Kshs. 2,100/= per Schedule 7(7)(ii)
The court applied the applicable provisions of Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order to the attendance items. Items 9 and 11-13 were each allowed at Kshs. 1,400/=, while item 10, which involved a hearing session that did not take a full day, was allowed at Kshs. 2,100/=.
Legal principles established
#- Service via e-mail constitutes valid service and attracts an award of Kshs. 1,400 under Paragraph 10 of Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
- Order 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules on service of summons applies mutatis mutandis to service of other court processes
Court orders
#- 1.Items 1, 2-3 and 8 of the Bill of Costs, being drawn to scale, were assessed as drawn
- 2.Item 5 was assessed off for want of proof
- 3.Item 4 was assessed at Kshs. 4,000/=
- 4.Item 6 was assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= for service via e-mail
- 5.Item 7 was assessed off since the Taxation Notice was served together with the Bill of Costs in item 6 via e-mail
- 6.Items 9 and 11-13 were assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= each per Schedule 7(7)(6) of the ARO
- 7.Item 10 was assessed at Kshs. 2,100/= per Schedule 7(7)(ii) of the ARO
- 8.The Plaintiff's Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 22nd January 2026 was assessed at Kshs. 206,000/=
- 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, "Lubisia v Trident Insurance Company (Civil Suit E161 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 751 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (ruling on Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 22nd January 2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/751/eng@2026-02-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.