https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1854

Gordon Ogola & Kipngetich Partners, Advocates v County Public Service Board, Kericho & 2 others (Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1854 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1854 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kericho Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2025 J Rika, J June 30, 2026 Between Gordon Ogola & Kipngetich Partners, Advocates Applicant and County Public Service Board, Kericho 1st Respondent County Government Of Kericho 2nd Respondent H.E.The Governor, Kericho 3rd Respondent Ruling 1.The Advocates’ Firm and its Clients, were involved in Kericho E&LRC Petition No.E014 of 2025. 2.Subsequently, the Advocates filed an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 4th April 2024. 3.It was taxed at Kshs. 16,375,662. 4.Two copies of the Ruling delivered by the Taxing Officer Hon. Japhet Bii, have been placed in the file. 5.They are both unsigned and undated. 6.The Bill was filed under Miscellaneous Application No. E001 of 2025. The undated and unsigned Ruling was made under Miscellaneous Application No. E001 of 2025. 7.The Respondents / Clients applied under Miscellaneous Application No. E001 of 2025, through an Application dated 4th July 2025, for leave to file Objection and Taxation Reference against the Ruling of the Taxing Officer. 8.They were granted 7 days to file the Reference. Execution of the taxed costs was stayed pending filing and hearing of the Reference . The Ruling granting these orders is dated 21st November 2025. 9.The Respondents did not file their Reference under Miscellaneous Application No. E001 of 2025. They instead filed it, under the original Petition E014 of 2025. 10.The Advocates have filed an Application dated 13th April 2026, to strike out the Reference filed by the Respondents in the Petition, dated 24th November 2025. It is submitted that the Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the Reference as filed. 11.The Application was last mentioned before the Court on 21st April 2026, in the absence of the Respondents, when the Applicant’s representative informed the Court that there was no response received from the Respondents. The Court Finds: - 12.There is a Reference filed in accordance with the orders made by the Court, on 21st November 2025. 13.However, reference was filed under the original proceedings, Petition E014 of 2025, instead of the Miscellaneous Application herein. 14.The Advocates obtained an order in the Miscellaneous Application No.E001 of 2025 dated 16th April 2026, staying prosecution of the Reference filed in the Petition. The Reference has therefore not been heard in the primary proceedings. 15.The Respondents appear to have mistaken the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs proceedings, which are normally presented through a Miscellaneous Application, for a Party-Party Bill of Costs proceedings, which are conducted in the primary action. Mixing up the two procedures, is an error that even the most experienced Advocate, could make. It is an excusable error. 16.The Court does not think that the result should be the draconian order of striking out of the reference as proposed by the Advocates. 17.Such an order would only place the Respondents in a situation where they return to Court, seeking leave to file another reference in the correct file. 18.The error can be cured by simply transferring the existing Application for Reference, to Miscellaneous Application No. E001 of 2025. 19.The Court views the error made by the Respondents on filing their Reference, as an issue of procedural technicality, rather than a matter of jurisdiction, which the Court is mandated to remedy under Article 159 [2] [d] of the Constitution 20.Parties would move on with the Reference, have some finality on the costs payable to the Advocates, without the back and forth, once the Reference is placed in the correct file. It would save the Court and the Parties time and other resources. It is also important that the unsigned and undated Ruling of the Taxing Officer, granting the Advocates costs at Kshs. 16,375,662, is interrogated on Reference through merit, instead of being sustained on a procedural technicality.It is ordered: -a.The Application filed by the Advocates dated 13th April 2026 is declined.b.The Reference Application filed by the Respondents under Kericho Petition E014 of 2025, dated 24th November 2025, is transferred and placed in Miscellaneous Application No. E001 of 2025.c.The Court Registry to correct the title to the Reference Application to reflect the correct details appearing under Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2025.d.A date for hearing of the Reference Application to be assigned at the Registry as soon as practicable.e.No order on the costs DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT KERICHO, UNDER RULE 68[5] OF THE E&LRC [PROCEDURE] RULES, 2024, THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.JAMES RIKAJUDGE