Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistratePartially AllowedMCCC/E426/2021

Thomas Openda v County Government of Uasin Gishu

Magistrate Court of Kenya at Uasin Gishu County (Eldoret)
25 September 2026
MAM.E. Aligula
366 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a taxation ruling by the Magistrate's Court at Eldoret in MCCC/E426/2021, Thomas Openda v County Government of Uasin Gishu. The plaintiff filed a party-and-party bill of costs following judgment in his favour; the judgment sum was Kshs 500,000/-. The bill was served and the defendant, through a replying affidavit sworn by Kutto Jeff Kiprono, opposed it, describing it as misleading, unsupported by any justification of complexity or valuation of the subject matter, and drawn beyond scale, particularly the instruction fees and court attendance items. The taxing magistrate assessed the bill without extended reasoning. Taking the judgment sum of Kshs 500,000/- as the subject value, the court placed it in the Kshs 500,000 to 1,000,000 band and fixed instruction fees at Kshs 90,000/-. The court then taxed the bill item by item: some items were allowed as drawn; numerous getting-up and attendance items were scaled down to uniform sums of Kshs 1,400/- or Kshs 2,100/-; a substantial block of court attendance items was taxed at nil; and several discrete items were allowed at amounts ranging from Kshs 500/- to Kshs 12,800/-. The bill was ultimately taxed at Kshs 204,785/-. A 30-day stay of execution was granted. The ruling was delivered electronically at Eldoret on 25th September, 2026 by M.E. Aligula, Magistrate. No costs order was made on the taxation itself.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the plaintiff's party-and-party bill of costs should be taxed as drawn or scaled down, having regard to the value of the subject matter and the Advocates Remuneration Order scale

Key legal issues

#
01

Assessment of instruction fees by reference to subject matter value

Holding

Instruction fees fixed at Kshs 90,000/- as the judgment sum of Kshs 500,000/- falls within the Kshs 500,000 to 1,000,000 band

Reasoning

The court identified the judgment sum as the value of the subject matter, mapped it onto the applicable remuneration scale band, and fixed instruction fees accordingly, rejecting the plaintiff's unscaled claim.

p. 1
02

Taxation of individual items of the bill including court attendances

Holding

Various items taxed as drawn, scaled down to fixed sums, or struck out at nil where drawn beyond scale

Reasoning

Responding to the defendant's objection that attendances were drawn beyond scale, the court went item by item, taxing some as drawn, reducing others to uniform sums, and striking out a substantial block of attendance items at nil.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Where the judgment sum is Kshs 500,000/-, it falls within the Kshs 500,000 to 1,000,000 band and instruction fees are Kshs 90,000/-

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Instruction fees assessed at Kshs 90,000/- based on judgment sum of Kshs 500,000/-
  2. 2.Items b, c, d, s, y, cc taxed as drawn
  3. 3.Items e, f, g, i, k, m, o, q, t, u, w, aa, dd, ff, hh, jj, ll, nn, pp, rr, uu, aaa, bbb and hhh each taxed at Kshs 1,400/-
  4. 4.Items h, j, l, n, p, r, v, x, z, bb, ee, gg, ii, kk, mm, oo, qq, ss, tt each taxed at nil
  5. 5.Items vv, ww, xx, ccc, fff, and iii each taxed at Kshs 2,100/-
  6. 6.Item ggg taxed at Kshs 500/-
  7. 7.Item yy taxed at Kshs 7,000/-
  8. 8.Item zz taxed at Kshs 9,200/-
  9. 9.Item ddd taxed at Kshs 12,100/-
  10. 10.Item eee taxed at Kshs 12,800/-
  11. 11.Bill of costs taxed at Kshs 204,785/-
  12. 12.30 days stay of execution granted

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

MA
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Taxation of a party-and-party bill of costs under the Magistrates' Court jurisdiction (advocate's bill following judgment in MCCC/E426/2021)

Relief refused

#

Taxation of the bill as drawn at the full amounts claimed

Defendant opposed the bill as misleading and drawn beyond scale; court taxed down several items, striking out court attendance items entirely

p. 1

Costs

No costs order made on the taxation; only the taxed sum of Kshs 204,785/- with 30 days stay of execution.

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

The judgement sum is ksh 500,000/-. A subject value of ksh 500,000/- falls within the ksh 500,000 to 1,000,000; hence the instruction fees are kshs 90,000/-
p. 1Assessment of instruction fees by subject matter value
The bill of costs at taxed at ksh 204,785/30 days stay of execution is granted.
p. 2Final orders - taxed amount and stay of execution

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Bill of costs dated '22ns June, 2026' - typo and date later than case number year (2021)

minor

Service and replying affidavit dated July 2026, inconsistent with 2021 case number

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Thomas Openda v County Government of Uasin Gishu", Case Analysis (2026). MCCC/E426/2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/941/eng@2026-09-25

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.