REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT BUNGOMA CIVIL SUIT NO. E170 OF 2025 SAMSON ONGERA.……………………………………………….……….PLAINTIFF VERSUS WANANGALI COMPANY LIMITED……………………………………………….DEFENDANT RULING 1. This ruling determines the Plaintiff’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 06th February 2026. 2. Items 1, 4, 9, 12-14 & 16 – 23 were assessed as drawn since they had been drawn to scale. Instruction Fees 3. The value of the subject matter herein is Kshs. 103,400/=. Schedule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order (ARO) provides for a minimum instruction fee of Kshs. 40,000/= for a case of this nature. 4. Considering the time taken to conclude this matter, this court finds Kshs. 45,000/= claimed by the Plaintiff as instruction fees to be reasonable. Therefore, item A was assessed as drawn. Value Added Tax 5. The Plaintiff prayed for an award of V.A.T in the instant Party and Party Bill of Costs. 6. The costs in a Party to Party Bill of Costs are costs due to a litigant, not a counsel representing a litigant. This begs the question of whether a litigant is entitled to a claim for VAT during the assessment of their costs. This question was answered in Pyramid Motors Limited vs Langata Gardens
page 1 of 4
Limited (2015)eKLR, where J.L. Onguto, J (as he then was) rendered himself thus; “On the final issue of VAT, I hold the simple view that in allowing the same the Master erred under the Value Added Tax Act, 2013 particularly section 5 thereof. Value Added Tax (VAT) is chargeable in taxable supply made by any registered person. There was no taxable supply of either goods or services made to the Applicant herein by the Respondent herein. The Bills herein concerned Party and Party costs and VAT could then not apply as neither party fetched nor supplied services to the other. True, legal services were rendered but it is not the Advocate who was being compensated herein. The Master could only have awarded VAT if the Bills were AdvocateClient Bills or if there was tendered evidence before the Master that the Plaintiff had paid VAT and was consequently entitled to indemnity. But yet that again is also debatable whether the Plaintiff was a vatable person. I would vacate the award on VAT as the Master erred. In the result, I would not return the Bills to the master for reassessment but would direct that the item of VAT be completely and wholly taxed off” 7. The holding in the Pyramids Motors Limited case (supra) was also followed in Kenya Commercial Bank Limited v Stagecoach Management Limited [2017] eKLR. 8. This court’s understanding of the authorities above is that unless a party proves that it supplied taxable goods and services to the other party. V.A.T cannot be awarded in a Party and Party Bill of Costs. 9. The mere fact that a law firm representing a party pays V.A.T does not entitle a party to an award of V.A.T.
page 2 of 4
10.For the reasons above, item B on V.A.T was assessed off. Service 11.Item 5 involved service in Makutano, just a few kilometres from Bungoma town. Guided by schedule 7 (10) (i) of the ARO and considering the distance between Bungoma and Makutano, this court assessed item 5 at Kshs. 2,000/=. 12. Item 6 was assessed off for want of proof. 13. Service in items 7 & 8 was conducted through e-mail. In Aoro v Were (Miscellaneous Reference Application E019 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 14628 (KLR), Aburili, J rendered herself as follows on the cost of service via e-mail: 53.The starting point herein is to point out that whereas order 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules relates to service of summons, it applies mutatis mutandis to service of other court processes, which include applications and related documents. This provision, it should be noted, was necessitated by the advent of Covid-19 pandemic which made it impossible for personal and even postal service of documents or court processes. 54.For the above reasons, I hold that service via e-mail is still service and draws an award of Kshs. 1,400 in line with Paragraph 10 of schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. I find no error on the part of the taxing officer in awarding the respondent items 9,10,24,33,38,41,42,45 as drawn. Accordingly, the objection thereto is found to be devoid of any merit. 14. Guided by the authority above, items 7 & 8 were assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= each. Attendances 15. Item 10 was assessed off since there is no evidence on record for such court sessions. Court Fees 16. Item 9 was assessed at Kshs. 500/= per the court fees receipt on record. 17. Item 11 was assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= per schedule 7 (6) of the ARO. 18. Item 15 was assessed at Kshs. 2,100/= per schedule 7 (7) (ii) of the ARO.
page 3 of 4
DETERMINATION 19. For the reasons above, the Plaintiff’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 06th February 2026 is assessed at Kshs. 77,300/=. 20. However, it is noteworthy that liability in this matter was apportioned in the ratio of 90%:10% in favour of the Plaintiff. 21. 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. 22. Given the above authority, the costs due to the Plaintiff are Kshs. 69,570/= Read, signed and delivered in open court at Bungoma this 23rd day of April 2026 T.O. OMONO SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE In the presence of: Ms. Wanyama for the Plaintiff C/A: Rioba
page 4 of 4