Josphat Kiptoo Chumo v John Mana & 2 Others
The bottom line
#An Eldoret court taxed a winning party's legal costs at Ksh 123,700 after the losing side ignored the bill, showing silence can be expensive.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Assessment of an unopposed party-and-party bill of costs
The court proceeded to tax the bill in the defendant's absence, allowing instruction fees of Ksh 65,000, taxing most items as drawn, striking out four items, and fixing others at reduced amounts
The bill was duly served as shown by a sworn return of service, and the defendant neither filed a response nor attended court on the taxation date. The court therefore exercised its discretion to assess the bill unopposed, applying the applicable fee band to the judgment sum of Ksh 226,550 and taxing each item individually.
Legal principles established
#- A judgment sum of Ksh 226,550 falls within the Ksh 200,000 to 500,000 band, attracting instruction fees of Ksh 65,000
Court orders
#- 1.Items 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20, 23, 27, 29, 31, 32 and 33 taxed as drawn
- 2.Items 5, 7, 14 and 16 taxed at nil
- 3.Item 10 taxed at Ksh 1,000
- 4.Items 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28 and 30 each taxed at Ksh 1,400
- 5.Bill of costs taxed at Ksh 123,700
- 6.30 days stay of execution granted
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Taxing jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over a party-and-party bill of costs arising from a decree of the same court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Josphat Kiptoo Chumo v John Mana & 2 Others", Case Analysis (2026). MCCC/E462/2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/943/eng@2026-09-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.