kemc-2026-00754

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 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” 8. The holding in the Pyramids Motors Limited case (supra) was also followed in Kenya Commercial Bank Limited v Stagecoach Management Limited [2017] eKLR. 9. 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. 10. The was no supply of taxable goods or services between the parties herein for the Plaintifi to seek V.A.T from the Defendants. 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 in a party and party Bill of Costs. 12. For the reasons above, item B on V.A.T was assessed ofi. Filing Fees 13. Items 1, 3 – 5 were assessed as drawn, as evidenced by the court fees receipts on record. Service 14. Items 7 and 8 involved service in Kabuchai within Bungoma County, barely nine (9) kilometres from Bungoma town, where the Plaintifi’s advocate's ofice and Bungoma Law Courts are situated. 15. Schedule 7 (10)(i) provides for a minimum of service fees of Kshs. 1,400/= for service within three kilometers of subordinate court or district registry of the subordinate court. Guided by this authority and considering the distance between Kabuchai and Bungoma, this court assessed items 7 and 8 at Kshs. 2,000/= each. 16. Service in items 9 – 12 was conducted via e-mail. That is substituted service. Schedule 7 (10)(iii) provides that where service is by post or by any other mode of Substituted service, the actual expense incurred for the service ought to be charged. There is no evidence on record on the actual expense incurred by the Plaintifi in efiecting service via email in items 9 – 12. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/754/eng@2026-06-23 2

page 2 of 3

17. 18. Be that as it may, this court places reliance on Aoro v Were (Miscellaneous Reference Application E019 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 14628 (KLR), Aburili, J, where 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 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 oficer 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. Guided by the authority above, items 9 – 12 were assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= each. Attendances 19. Items 14 were assessed ofi since there is no evidence on record to show that the 4th Defendant or his counsel attended court on those occasions. 20. Items 13, 19, 20 and 21 were assessed at Kshs. 1,400/= each per schedule 7(6) of the ARO since the court sessions on those occasions were largely mentions where no hearing took place. Determination 21. The upshot of the foregoing is that the Plaintifi’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 17th April 2026 is assessed at Kshs. 81,500/=. 22. However, it is noteworthy that liability in this matter was apportioned in the ratio of 90%:10% in favour of the Plaintifi. 23. 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. 24. Guided by the authority above, the costs due to the Plaintifi are Kshs. 73,350/= READ, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT BUNGOMA, THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2026 T.O. OMONO SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE In the presence of: Ms. for the Plaintifi Mr. for the 4th Defendant C/A: Rioba https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/754/eng@2026-06-23 3

page 3 of 3