[2024] KEHC 6997 (KLR)
The High Court determined that, although it is a court of equal status to the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC), the transition period has ended, and the applicant, being a law firm, should have been aware of the jurisdictional requirements under Article 162(2) of the Constitution. Since the bills of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 6997 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Bruce Odeny & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Pride Kings Security Services
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application E105 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Strike Out Bills of Costs for Want of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Application allowed; bills of costs struck out for want of jurisdiction; costs awarded to respondent.
- Judges
- MS Shariff
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Courts, Transfer of Bills of Costs, Taxation of Costs, Equal Status of Courts
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bruce Odeny & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Pride Kings Security Services
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Strike Out Bills of Costs for Want of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to transfer bills of costs to the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC).
- 2 Whether bills of costs filed in a court without jurisdiction should be struck out.
- 3 Whether the orders made by the Deputy Registrar in respect of the bills of costs should be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court determined that, although it is a court of equal status to the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC), the transition period has ended, and the applicant, being a law firm, should have been aware of the jurisdictional requirements under Article 162(2) of the Constitution. Since the bills of costs were filed in a court without jurisdiction, the High Court lacks the authority to transfer them to the ELRC. Consequently, the proper course is to set aside the orders made by the Deputy Registrar and strike out the bills of costs, awarding costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; bills of costs struck out for want of jurisdiction; costs awarded to respondent.
Orders
- Orders made by the Deputy Registrar High Court on 25.10.2023 in respect of this file are set aside and the bill of costs dated 31.7.2023 is struck out with costs to the respondent assessed at Kshs.10,000 for the notice of motion dated 24.1.24.
- Orders made by the Deputy Registrar High Court on 25.10.2023 in respect of Misc. E128 of 2023 are set aside and the bill of costs dated 14.8.2023 is struck out with costs to the respondent assessed at Kshs.10,000 for the notice of motion dated 24.1.24.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Bruce Odeny & Co. Advocates v Pride Kings Security Services (Miscellaneous Civil Application E105 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 6997 (KLR) (11 June 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 6997 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kisumu
Miscellaneous Civil Application E105 of 2023
MS Shariff, J
June 11, 2024
Between
Bruce Odeny & Co. Advocates
Applicant
and
Pride Kings Security Services
Respondent
Ruling
1. I have considered the Respondent’s Notice of Motion dated 24. 1.2024, the supporting affidavit sworn by Fredrick Mashuke on even date and I have considered the rival submissions of both Counsels for the Applicant and the Respondent.
2. I do note that the Applicant has made concession for prayer No. 3 of the application save that she prays that the bills of costs be transferred to the Deputy Registrar Employment and Labour Relations Court on grounds that this court being one of equal status as the Employment & Labour Relations Court has the requisite jurisdiction to do so.
3. Counsel for the Respondent has opposed the transfer of the said bills of costs in Misc. Case No. E106, E128 and E139/2023 on grounds that they were in the first instance filed in a court without jurisdiction wherefore this court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to transfer the same.
4. She moves that the said bills of costs be struck out given the want of jurisdiction. In any event the taxation of the same before a court without jurisdiction is the ground upon which the Respondent’s Notice of Motion herein is premised on.
5. I am persuaded by the submissions of Counsel for the Respondent.
6. Whereas this is a court of equal status as the ELRC Court, we are no longer in transition period wherefore the Applicant being a law firm ought to have been acquainted with the provisions of Article 162 (2) (1) and thus allow the application herein and I make the following orders:-1. In respect of this file the orders made by the Deputy Registrar High Court on 25. 10. 2023 are hereby set aside and the bill of costs dated 31. 7.2023 is hereby struck out with costs to the Respondent assessed at Kshs.10,000 in respect of notice of motion dated 24. 1.24. 2.In respect of Misc. E128 of 2023 the orders made by Deputy Registrar High Court on 25. 10. 2023 are hereby set aside and the bill of costs dated 14. 8.2023 is hereby struck out with costs to the Respondent assessed at Kshs.10,000 in respect of the notice of motion dated 24. 1.24. 3.In respect of Misc. E139 of 2023 the orders made by the Deputy Registrar High Court on 26. 10. 2023 are hereby set aside and the bill of costs dated 23. 8.2023 is hereby struck out with costs to the Respondent assessed at Kshs.10,000 in respect of the notice of motion dated 24. 1.24.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024. M. S. SHARIFFJUDGE