Chumo v Maina & 2 others
The bottom line
#An Eldoret court taxed the winning party's legal costs at Ksh 120,900 after the defendants ignored the taxation hearing, showing silence can be expensive.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Taxation in the absence of the defendant
Having been served with the bill as shown by the return of service, and having neither filed a response nor attended the taxation on 16 September 2026, the defendants defaulted and the court proceeded to assess the bill in their absence.
The court recorded that the bill dated 18 November 2025 was served upon the defendant as per the return of service sworn on 1 September 2026 by Omusundi J Morgan. On 16 September 2026 the defendant neither filed a response nor appeared. The magistrate treated that default as permitting formal assessment, stating that the court shall proceed and assess the bill. This reflects ordinary practice: a duly served party who does not participate in a taxation risks the bill being taxed on the taxing officer's own evaluation of each item.
Instruction fees on a subject value of Ksh 206,550
The judgment/subject value of Ksh 206,550 falls within the Ksh 200,000 to 500,000 band, so instruction fees were fixed at Kshs 65,000.
The taxing officer took the judgment sum of Ksh 206,550 as the subject value and applied the band for values between Ksh 200,000 and Ksh 500,000, fixing instruction fees at Kshs 65,000. The ruling does not identify the fee schedule relied on, and no party appeared to contest the computation. The instruction fee is the largest single component of the final taxed sum of Ksh 120,900.
Itemised taxation of the bill
Items 4 and 6 were taxed at nil, item 9 at Ksh 1,000, nine items at Ksh 1,400 each, and the remaining enumerated items as drawn, producing a global taxed figure of Ksh 120,900.
The court went through the bill item by item. The enumerated items (with item 25 listed twice) were allowed as drawn; items 4 and 6 were disallowed entirely; item 9 was allowed at Ksh 1,000; and items 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24 and 26 were each allowed at Ksh 1,400. No reasons were recorded for any disallowance or reduction, and the defendant made no submissions, so the reductions rest solely on the taxing officer's discretion. The global figure of Ksh 120,900 follows from these allowances.
Legal principles established
#- A taxing officer may assess a duly served bill of costs where the responding party neither files a response nor attends the taxation.
- For a judgment/subject value falling between Ksh 200,000 and Ksh 500,000, instruction fees of Kshs 65,000 are chargeable on a party-and-party bill.
Court orders
#- 1.Instruction fees fixed at Kshs 65,000/-.
- 2.Items 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 25, 23, 25, 27, 28 and 29 of the bill taxed as drawn.
- 3.Items 4 and 6 taxed at nil.
- 4.Item 9 taxed at Ksh 1,000/-.
- 5.Items 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24 and 26 each taxed at Ksh 1,400/-.
- 6.The bill of costs taxed at Ksh 120,900/-.
- 7.30 days' stay of execution granted.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated. The court exercises its taxing jurisdiction over a party-and-party bill of costs in the civil suit before it; no constitutional or statutory provision is invoked in the ruling.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chumo v Maina & 2 others", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Case E440 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/930/eng@2026-09-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.