Nduulu v National Oil Corporation of Kenya (Miscellaneous Application E372 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1325 (KLR) (15 May 2026) (Ruling)

Nduulu v National Oil Corporation of Kenya (Miscellaneous Application E372 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1325 (KLR) (15 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1325 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Miscellaneous Application E372 of 2025 AK Nzei, J May 15, 2026 Between Benedict Nduulu Applicant and National Oil Corporation of Kenya Respondent Ruling 1.The application before me for determination is the Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 25th September, 2025. The Applicant seeks the following Orders:-a.That Judgment be entered against the Respondent for the amount of Kshs.106,849/631 being the taxed costs in the sum of Kshs.87,391/= and 14% interest per annum from 26/2/2024 to the date of this application in the sum of Kshs.19,458/631, and thereafter interest to accrue at 14% per annum until payment in full.b.That the Applicant bears the costs of the application. 2.The application is based on the supporting affidavit of Daniel Karuru Mwaura Advocate sworn on 25th September, 2025. It is deponed in the said supporting affidavit:-a.that costs were on 30th May, 2025, taxed in favour of the Applicant herein in Court of Appeal Civil Application No. NAI 20 of 2019, at Kshs.87,391/=.b.that a certificate of costs was served on the Respondent on 10th June, 2025 and 5th September, 2025.c.that there are no pending references. 3.Documents annexed to the supporting affidavit include copies of the Court of Appeal’s Order dated 26th February, 2024 awarding costs to the Applicant, a certificate of costs dated 30th May, 2025, correspondence regarding service of the certificate of costs and a demand for payment of the taxed costs. 4.The application is opposed by the Respondent vide its grounds of opposition dated 11th November, 2025, which I have considered. 5.The certificate of taxation, on the basis of which Judgment is sought herein, stems from the Court of Appeal’s Order dated 26th February, 2026 in the said Court’s Civil Application No. 20 of 2019. Vide its said order, the Court of Appeal struck off the Respondent’s Notice of Appeal and awarded costs of the said application to the Applicant herein. The said costs are shown to have been taxed by the said Court’s Deputy Registrar on 30th May, 2025 at Kshs.87,391/=. A certificate of costs was subsequently issued on 9th June, 2025. 6.Section 4 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (Cap 9) Laws of Kenya provides as follows:-“ 4.Any Judgment of the Court of Appeal given in exercise of its Jurisdiction under this Act may be executed and enforced as if it were a Judgment of the High Court”. 7.The term “High Court” as used in the foregoing statutory provision includes this Court, by virtue of Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. 8.Section 2 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act defines the word “Judgment” as follows:-“Judgment” includes decree, order, sentence and decision”. 9.The Court of Appeal’s aforesaid order awarding costs to the Applicant and the said Court’s Deputy Registrar’s Order taxing the awarded costs at Kshs.87,391/= fall within the purview of the foregoing definition of the term “Judgment”. 10.In my view, execution proceedings to recover the said taxed costs can only issue in the cause from whence the impugned order giving rise to the struck-off Notice of Appeal arose. The said costs are shown to be Party and Party Costs, but not Advocate/Client Costs. 11.In my view, the Applicant cannot file and/or originate a fresh cause for purposes of recovering the said taxed costs, and neither can this Court be called upon to enter Judgment in terms of the taxed costs. 12.Had the taxed costs been Advocate/Client Costs, this Court would enter Judgment pursuant to Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act. 13.Rule 113(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 provides as follows:-“(2)For the purpose of execution in respect of costs, the decision of the Court directing taxation and the certificate of the taxing officer as to the result of such taxation shall together be deemed to be a decree”. 14.The import of the foregoing subrule is that there already exists a decree on the costs in issue. The prayer for this Court to enter “Judgment” based on an already existing decree is frivolous. The application is an abuse of this Court’s process. 15.In the upshot, and having considered submissions filed herein on behalf of both parties, the Notice of Motion dated 25th September, 2025 is hereby struck off with no order as to costs. 16.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY 2026AGNES KITIKU NZEIJUDGEORDERThis Ruling has been delivered via Microsoft Teams Online Platform. A signed copy will be availed to each party upon payment of the applicable Court fees.AGNES KITIKU NZEIJUDGEAppearance:Mr. Mwaura for the ApplicantMiss Ondogo for the Respondent