REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT BUNGOMA CIVIL SUIT NO. E529 OF 2024 EVANS WEKESA BARASA…………………………………………..PLAINTIFF VERSUS MORANGA ANYONKA GETANGE & ANOTHER……………………………………….DEFENDANTS RULING 1. This ruling determines the Plaintiff’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 19 th November 2025. 2. The 2nd Defendant opposed the said Bill of Costs through written submissions dated 03rd February 2026, which this court has duly considered. 3. The items opposed by the Defendant have been assessed as hereunder. Filing Fees 4. Items 1, 3-5 & 8 were assessed as drawn since the court fees receipts on record supported the claims. 5. Item 2 was assessed off for want of proof of expenditure of Kshs. 300/=. 6. Items 6 & 7 were assessed off given that the police officer and the medic who were reportedly paid Kshs. 5,000/= by the Plaintiff are public officers who ought not to be paid to perform their official duties. That being the case, the Plaintiff cannot seek to benefit from an illegality.
page 1 of 4
Service 7. The Affidavits of Service on record proved that the Plaintiff effected service of the Plaint, Summons to Enter Appearance upon the Defendant in Luanda. 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. Luanda is over three kilometers from Bungoma. 8. Considering the distance between Bungoma and Luanda, this court assesses service fees in item 9 at Kshs. 4,000/=. 9. Items 10 & 12 were assessed off for want of proof. 10.Whereas the record shows that service in item 13 was effected by advertisement, the Plaintiff did not place before this court a receipt to support the claim for advertisement fees of Kshs. 16,240/=. However, bearing in mind the said service was in deed done through advertisement, this court exercises its discretion and assesses service fees in item 13 at Kshs. 5,000/=. 11.Service in items 11 & 14 – 17 was effected via 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
page 2 of 4
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. 12.Guided by the authority above, items 11 & 14 – 17 were assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= each. Attendances 13.Items 18 - 21 & 25 – 28 were assessed as drawn since those items were drawn to scale. 14.Item 22 was assessed as drawn since on that occasion, this court awarded the Plaintiff costs of Kshs. 4,100/=. 15.The hearing sessions in items 23 & 24 did not take a full day. Therefore, those items were assessed at Kshs. 2,100/= each per schedule 7 (7) (ii) of the ARO. Drawings & Filing of Affidavits 16.Items 29 – 36 were assessed as drawn given that those items were drawn to scale. DETERMINATION 17.The upshot of the foregoing is that the Plaintiff’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 19th November 2025 is assessed at Kshs. 228,100/=. 18.It is so ordered.
page 3 of 4
READ, SIGNED and DELIVERED in open court at Bungoma this 12th day of February 2026 T.O. OMONO SENIOR RESDIENT MAGISTRATE In the presence of: Ms. Wanyama for the Plaintiff C/A: Mr. Rioba
page 4 of 4