Juma v Albrima General Cargo Limited (Civil Case E176 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 613 (KLR) (21 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 613 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE BUNGOMA LAW COURTS CIVIL CASE E176 OF 2025 TO OMONO, SRM JULY 21, 2026 BETWEEN KEVIN KHISA JUMA ................................................................................ PLAINTIFF AND ALBRIMA GENERAL CARGO LIMITED .......................................... DEFENDANT RULING 1. This ruling determines the Plaintifi’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 23rd March 2026. Instruction Fees 2. The value of the subject matter herein is Kshs. 94,272/=. The Defendant neither entered appearance nor filed a Statement of Defence. This matter proceeded by way of formal proof. In such instances, Schedule 7(1)(a) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order (ARO) provides for 65% of instruction fees pegged on the lower scale. 3. The minimum instruction fees will, therefore, work out as follows: 65% of Kshs. 15,000/= which equals Kshs. 9,750/=. 4. Considering the nature of the suit and time taken to conclude the same, this court assessed item A at Kshs. 15,000/=. Value Added Tax 5. VAT is chargeable where a party supplies taxable goods or services to another party. There was no taxable supply of goods and services between the Plaintifi and the Defendants. The costs arising from this ruling are not the Plaintifi’s counsel’s income which attracts VAT but the Plaintifi’s costs of the suit. The costs of the suit due to the Plaintifi herein cannot thus attract VAT. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/613/eng@2026-07-21 1
page 1 of 2
6. Therefore, item B was assessed ofi in line with the holding in Pyramid Motors Limited vs Langata Gardens Limited (2015) eKLR and Kenya Commercial Bank Limited v Stagecoach Management Limited [2017] eKLR. Filing Fees 7. Items 1, 3 – 5 were assessed as drawn per the receipts on record. 8. Item 2 was assessed ofi for want of proof. Service 9. Item 6 was assessed ofi for want of proof. 10. Items 7 – 14 were assessed at Kshs. 2,500/= each given the distance between Bungoma and Malaba and per Schedule 7(10)(i) of the ARO. Attendances 11. Item 18 was assessed ofi since neither the Plaintifi nor his counsel attended court on that occasion. Drawing and Filing of Afidavits of Service 12. Items 25 – 33 were assessed at Kshs. 1,000/= each as drawn per schedule 7(11) of the ARO. Determination 13. The upshot of the foregoing is that the Plaintifi’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 23rd March 2026 is assessed at Kshs. 66,650/=. 14. However, it is noteworthy that liability in this matter was apportioned in the ratio of 80%:20% in favour of the Plaintifi. 15. 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. 16. Given the above authority, the costs due to the Plaintifi are Kshs. 53,320/= READ, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT BUNGOMA THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY 2026 T.O. OMONO SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE In the presence of: Mr. Bw’onchiri for the Plaintifi C/A: Mr. Rioba https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/613/eng@2026-07-21 2
page 2 of 2