[2014] KEELRC 470 (KLR)

[2014] KEELRC 470 (KLR)

The Court found that the Applicant failed to raise sufficient grounds to warrant a review of the Deputy Registrar's taxation of costs. The application did not meet the threshold set out under Rule 32 of the Industrial Court Rules 2010 for review of a taxed bill of costs. Consequently, the application for review was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEELRC 470 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Evans O. Agulo; Respondent: H. Young and Company (E.A.) Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1614 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Taxed Costs
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Review of Taxed Costs, Costs Award, Industrial Court Procedure
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Review of Taxed Costs Costs Award Industrial Court Procedure

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evans O. Agulo

Applicant

H. Young and Company (E.A.) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Taxed Costs

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant has established sufficient grounds for review of the Deputy Registrar's taxation of costs under Rule 32 of the Industrial Court Rules 2010.
  2. 2 Whether the application for review of the taxed bill of costs should be allowed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Applicant failed to raise sufficient grounds to warrant a review of the Deputy Registrar's taxation of costs. The application did not meet the threshold set out under Rule 32 of the Industrial Court Rules 2010 for review of a taxed bill of costs. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed with costs awarded to the Respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 20th January 2014 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.