Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Plaintiffs v Defendants (Party and Party Bills of Costs, Bungoma CMCC Nos. E117 and E118 of 2025)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT BUNGOMA CIVIL SUIT NO. E117 AND E118 OF 2025 EMMANUEL WANJALA WAFULA AND ANOTHER……………………………………………….PLAINTIFFS VERSUS JOEL KIBET & ANOTHER………………………………………….DEFENDANTS RULING 1. This ruling determines the Plaintiffs’ Party and Party Bills of Costs dated 30th January 2026 in Bungoma CMCC Nos. E117 and E118 all of 2025 (“the suits”). 2. The said Bill of Costs has been assessed as set out below. 3. Items 1,2,5-8 and 10 were assessed as drawn since the said items were drawn to scale. 4. Items 4 and 11 were assessed off for want of proof. Service 5. Item 3 was assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= each per schedule 7(10)(i) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order (ARO), given that the Plaintiffs did not specify the specific place service was conducted. Court Fees 6. Item 9 was assessed at Kshs. 500/= per the court fees receipt on record. DETERMINATION 7. The upshot of the foregoing is that the Plaintiffs’ Party and Party Bills of Costs dated 30th January 2026 were assessed at Kshs. 60,800/= each. 8. However, it is noteworthy that liability in this matter was apportioned in the ratio of 90%:10% in favour of the Plaintiff. 9. Note 3 under Schedule 7 of the ARO provides thus: Where success in a suit is divided, the scale may be distributed having regard to partial success on either side. 10. Given the above authority, the costs due to the Plaintiffs in the suits is Kshs. 54,720/= each. Read, signed, and delivered in open court at Bungoma, this 30th day of June 2026

page 1 of 2

T.O. OMONO SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE In the presence of: Ms. Oriko for the Plaintiff C/A: Rioba

page 2 of 2

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.