Wanyonyi v Ambrose & others (Civil Suit E313 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 709 (KLR) (14 April 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 709 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE BUNGOMA LAW COURTS CIVIL SUIT E313 OF 2025 TO OMONO, SRM APRIL 14, 2026 BETWEEN ABEL WANYONYI ..................................................................................... PLAINTIFF AND GEORGE AMBROSE & OTHERS ........................................................ DEFENDANT RULING 1. This ruling determines the Plaintifi’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 06th February 2026. 2. Items A,1, 4, & 7-31were assessed as drawn since the said items were drawn to scale. Value Added Tax 3. The Plaintifi prayed for an award of V.A.T in the instant Party and Party Bill of Costs. 4. 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 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 Advocate- Client Bills or if there was tendered evidence before the Master that the Plaintifi had paid VAT and was consequently entitled to indemnity. But yet that again is https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/709/eng@2026-04-14 1
page 1 of 2
also debatable whether the Plaintifi 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 re-assessment but would direct that the item of VAT be completely and wholly taxed ofi” 5. The holding in the Pyramids Motors Limited case (supra) was also followed in Kenya Commercial Bank Limited v Stagecoach Management Limited [2017] eKLR. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. For the reasons above, item B on V.A.T was assessed ofi. Filing Fees 9. Items 2 & 3 were assessed ofi for want of proof. Service 10. Item 6 involved service in Ndengelwa, just a few kilometres from Bungoma town. Guided by schedule 7 (10) (i) of the ARO and considering the distance between Bungoma and Ndengelwa, this court assessed item 6 at Kshs. 3,000/=. Determination 11. The upshot of the foregoing is that the Plaintifi’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 06th February 2026 is assessed at Kshs. 109,100/=. READ, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT BUNGOMA THIS 14TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 T.O. OMONO SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE In the presence of: Ms. Wanyama for the Plaintifi C/A: Mr. Rioba https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/709/eng@2026-04-14 2
page 2 of 2