REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT BUNGOMA CIVIL SUIT NO. E179 OF 2025 MARYGORETTY WAMALWA……………………………………………….PLAINTIFF VERSUS ALBRIMA GENERAL CARGO LTD………………………………………….DEFENDANT RULING 1. This ruling determines the Plaintiff’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 17th April 2026. 2. The said Bill of Costs has been assessed as set out below. 3. Items 1, 9 – 11, and 13 – 26 were assessed as drawn since the said items were drawn to scale. 4. Items 2, 5, 12 and 17 were assessed off for want of proof. 5. Item 8 was assessed off for being a repeat of item 7. Instruction fees 6. The value of the subject matter is Kshs. 117,625/=. This suit was undefended. Therefore, the applicable scale is the lower scale. Per schedule 7(1)(a) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order (ARO), the instruction fees will work out thus: 65% of Kshs. 30,000/= which equals minimum instruction fees of Kshs. 19,500/=. Given the nature of the matter and the time taken to conclude the same, this court finds Kshs. 25,000/= to be reasonable instruction fees in item A. Value Added Tax 7. Item B was assessed off in line with the holding 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 Plaintiff had paid VAT and was consequently entitled to
page 1 of 2
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 re-assessment but would direct that the item of VAT be completely and wholly taxed off” 8. The holding in the Pyramids Motors Limited case (supra) was also followed in Kenya Commercial Bank Limited v Stagecoach Management Limited [2017] eKLR. Service 9. Item 7 was assessed at Kshs. 3,000/= given the distance between Bungoma and Malaba. . DETERMINATION 10. The upshot of the foregoing is that the Plaintiff’s Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 17th April 2026 is assessed at Kshs. 87,634/=. Read, signed, and delivered in open court at Bungoma, this 30th day of June 2026 T.O. OMONO SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE In the presence of: Mr. Mulongo h/b Ms. Wanyama for the Plaintiff C/A: Rioba
page 2 of 2