REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT BUNGOMA CIVIL SUIT NO. E260 OF 2025 ABEL WANYONYI…………………………………………..PLAINTIFF VERSUS GEORGE AMBROSE & OTHERS……………………………………….DEFENDANT RULING 1. This ruling determines the Plaintiff’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 06 th February 2026. 2. Items 1, 4, & 7-31were assessed as drawn since the said items were drawn to scale. Instructions Fees 3. The value of the subject matter herein is Kshs. 115,200/=. This matter was defended, and proceeded to a full hearing before it was determined. 4. Schedule 7 (1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order (ARO) provides that in such instances, the instruction fees ought to be a minimum of Kshs. 40,000/=. 5. The Plaintiff pleaded for a sum of Kshs. 45,000/= for instructions fees. Considering the time taken to conclude this matter, this court takes the view that Kshs. 45,000/= is reasonable instruction fees. 6. Given the reasons above, item A was assessed as drawn.
page 1 of 4
Value Added Tax 7. The Plaintiff prayed for an award of V.A.T in the instant Party and Party Bill of Costs. 8. 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 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. The holding in the Pyramids Motors Limited case (supra) was also followed in Kenya Commercial Bank Limited v Stagecoach Management Limited [2017] eKLR. 10.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. 11.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. 12.For the reasons above, item B on V.A.T was assessed off. Filing Fees 13.Items 2 & 3 were assessed off for want of proof. Service 14.Item 5 involved service within Bungoma town. Schedule 7 (10) (i) of the ARO provides for minimum fees of Kshs. 1,400/= for service within three kilometers of the subordinate court or district registry of the subordinate court. 15.In the circumstances, item 5 was assessed at Kshs. 2,000/=. 16.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 17.The upshot of the foregoing is that the Plaintiff’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 06th February 2026 is assessed at Kshs. 97,100/=.
page 3 of 4
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 Plaintiff C/A: Mr. Rioba
page 4 of 4