REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT BUNGOMA CIVIL SUIT NO. E197 OF 2025 TECLA MACHIO ANG’ANYA…………………………………………..PLAINTIFF VERSUS MAUREEN NYAKERARIO OKINYI……………………………………….DEFENDANT RULING 1. This ruling determines the Plaintiff’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 11 th December 2025. 2. Items 1, 3,6,11-12 & 14 – 20 were drawn to scale, thus the said items were assessed as drawn. Instructions Fees 3. The value of the subject matter herein is Kshs. 263,760/=. This matter proceeded by way of formal proof since the Defendant neither entered appearance nor filed a Statement of Defence. 4. Schedule 7 (1) (a) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014 (ARO) provides that in such instances, the instruction fees ought to be 65% of the lower scale fees of Kshs. 45,000/=. 5. It is for the reasons above that item A was assessed at Kshs. 29,850/=. Value Added Tax
page 1 of 4
6. The Plaintiff prayed for an award of V.A.T in the instant Party and Party Bill of Costs. 7. This court is of the considered view that costs in a Party to Party Bill of Costs are costs due to a litigant not a counsel representing a litigant. Therefore, unless a party proves that it supplied taxable goods and services to the other party, VAT cannot be awarded in a Party and Party Bill of Costs. VAT can only be awarded in an Advocate – Client Bill of Costs. 8. To support the above position taken by this court, this court draws inspiration from Pyramid Motors Limited vs Langata Gardens Limited (2015)eKLR, where J.L. Onguto, J (may his soul rest in peace) stated; “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”
page 2 of 4
9. In any event, the Plaintiff did not provide any evidence indicating that they had paid V.A.T on the legal fees they had paid to their counsel, hence cannot claim the same (see Kenya Commercial Bank Limited v Stagecoach Management Limited [2017] eKLR). 10.The mere fact that a firm representing a party pays V.A.T does not entitle a party to an award of VAT. 11.For the reasons above, item B on V.A.T was assessed off. Filing Fees 12.Item 2 was assessed off for want of proof. 13.Item 4 was assessed at Kshs. 500/= as evidenced by the court fees receipt on record. Service 14.Item 7 was assessed off for being a repeat of item 5. 15.The Affidavits of Service on record proved that the Plaintiff effected service in items 5 & 8-10 in Buyofu within Bungoma county. 16.Schedule 7 (10) (i) of the ARO provides for minimum fees of Kshs. 1,400/= within three kilometers of the subordinate court or district registry of the subordinate court. 17.Considering the distance between Bungoma and Buyofu, service fees in items 5 & 8-10 was assessed at Kshs. 3,000/= each. Attendances 18.The hearing session in item 13 did not take a full day. Therefore, item 13 was assessed at Kshs. 2,100/= per schedule 7 (7) (ii) of the ARO. DETERMINATION
page 3 of 4
19.The upshot of the foregoing is that the Plaintiff’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 11th December 2025 is assessed at Kshs. 61,385/=. READ, SIGNED and DELIVERED in open court at Bungoma this 24th day of February 2026 T.O. OMONO SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE In the presence of: Ms. Wanyama for the Plaintiff C/A: Mr. Rioba
page 4 of 4