Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistrateOtherBungoma CMC CC Nos. E201, E204, E205, E207, E208, E214 and E222 all of 2025· [2026] KEMC 763 (KLR)

Okumu & others v Owino (Civil Case E201, E204, E205, E207, E208, E214 & E222 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEMC 763 (KLR)

Magistrates' Court
23 July 2026
301 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Bungoma court taxed seven cost bills at Kshs. 60,100 each, showing Kenyan courts reject claims for legal costs not yet actually incurred.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a taxation ruling by Senior Resident Magistrate T.O. Omono delivered in open court at Bungoma on 23rd July 2026, dealing jointly with the Plaintiff's Party and Party Bills of Costs dated 08th May 2026 filed in seven consolidated suits (Bungoma CMC CC Nos. E201, E204, E205, E207, E208, E214 and E222 of 2025), which were taxed together because they seek similar costs arising from similar proceedings. Items 1–2, 4–6(a)-(c) and (f), and item 8 were allowed as drawn to scale. Item 3 (service) in each Bill was assessed at Kshs. 1,400 per Schedule 7(10)(i) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order because the Plaintiff failed to provide particulars of the place of service of the Plaint and Summons to Enter Appearance. Items 6(d) and 6(e) (attendances at which no hearing took place) were assessed at Kshs. 1,400 each per Schedule 7(6). Item 7 (court fees) was allowed at Kshs. 500 each per the receipts on record. Item 9 was taxed off because those costs had not yet been incurred, the court noting they remain recoverable during execution upon proof of payment. The court concluded by assessing each Bill in the series at Kshs. 60,100. Ms. Chebet appeared for the Plaintiff and Mr. Choni for the Defendant. No costs order on the taxation itself was recorded and no authorities were cited.

Key legal issues

#
01

Taxation of service items without particulars of place of service

Holding

Allowed at the scheduled sum of Kshs. 1,400 per item

Reasoning

The court applied Schedule 7(10)(i) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order but, because the Plaintiff failed to give particulars of where service of the Plaint and Summons to Enter Appearance was effected, the item was not allowed as drawn but at the scheduled flat rate.

p. 1
02

Attendances at which no hearing took place

Holding

Assessed at Kshs. 1,400 each per Schedule 7(6) of the ARO

Reasoning

Items 6(d) and 6(e) related to attendances on occasions when no hearing took place, so the court did not allow them as drawn but applied the scheduled attendance fee.

p. 1
03

Costs yet to be incurred

Holding

Taxed off; recoverable only during execution upon proof of payment

Reasoning

Item 9 claims had not been incurred at the date of taxation. The court held such anticipatory claims cannot be allowed on taxation but remain recoverable in execution once payment is proved.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where particulars of the place of service are not provided, service is taxed at the scheduled rate of Kshs. 1,400 per Schedule 7(10)(i) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
  • Costs not yet incurred at taxation cannot be allowed but are recoverable during execution upon proof of payment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Items 1–2, 4–6(a)-(c) and (f) and item 8 assessed as drawn to scale
  2. 2.Item 3 in all Bills assessed at Kshs. 1,400 each per Schedule 7(10)(i) of the ARO
  3. 3.Items 6(d) and 6(e) assessed at Kshs. 1,400 each per Schedule 7(6) of the ARO
  4. 4.Item 7 in all Bills assessed at Kshs. 500 each per court fees receipts
  5. 5.Item 9 in all Bills assessed 'off' as costs yet to be incurred, recoverable during execution upon proof of payment
  6. 6.Each Party and Party Bill of Costs in the series assessed at Kshs. 60,100
Jurisdiction invoked
Advocates (Remuneration) Order – taxation of Party and Party Bills of Costs

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Okumu & others v Owino (Civil Case E201, E204, E205, E207, E208, E214 & E222 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEMC 763 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Bungoma CMC CC Nos. E201, E204, E205, E207, E208, E214 and E222 all of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/763/eng@2026-07-23

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