https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1768

J A Guserwa & Company Advocates v Uzuri Foods Ltd (Miscellaneous Application E045 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1768 (KLR) (26 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1768 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Miscellaneous Application E045 of 2025 BOM Manani, J June 26, 2026 Between J A Guserwa & Company Advocates Advocate and Uzuri Foods Limited Client Ruling Background 1.The reference application dated 2nd July 2025 challenges the taxation ruling which was delivered by the Taxing Master on 19th June 2025. The application is premised on, inter alia, rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. 2.The Client contends that in the Bill of Costs which the Advocate filed, reference was made to the fact that the proposed taxation was in respect of and arose from instructions given to the Advocate in Court of Appeal Civil Application No. E067 of 2024 between Uzuri Foods Limited and Benard Musyoka & 169 others. The Client contends that this being the case, the taxation proceedings could only be undertaken in respect of the aforesaid Court of Appeal Civil Application and no other matter unless the Bill of Costs was first amended because parties are bound by their pleadings. 3.The Client asserts that despite the fact that the Bill of Costs indicated that the taxation was in respect of Court of Appeal Civil Application No. E067 of 2024, the Advocate annexed to the Bill pleadings which relate to Court of Appeal Civil Application No. E429 of 2023 which is an entirely different matter. 4.The Client contends that despite this anomaly and without first amending the Bill of Costs to reflect that it related to Court of Appeal Civil Application No. E429 of 2023, the Taxing Master proceeded to tax the impugned Bill as if it related to Court of Appeal Civil Application No. E429 of 2023. In the Client’s view, by doing so, the Taxing Master committed an error of principle because he purported to tax costs in a matter which was not the subject of taxation if the Bill of Costs before him was anything to go by. 5.In response, the Advocate contends that the Client instructed her in Court of Appeal Civil Application No E429 of 2023 to seek extension of time to institute an appeal before the Court of Appeal out of time. The Advocate contends that the documents supplied to the Client in the taxation related to the aforesaid Civil Application before the Court of Appeal. 6.The Advocate contends that the Client also instructed her in Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. E067 of 2024. However, she asserts that taxation proceedings in respect of this Civil Application (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. E067 of 2024) were conducted in ELRC Miscellaneous Application No. E046 of 2025 between the parties. 7.The parties have disagreed on various other matters in the impugned taxation. However, the court considers that the aforesaid issue is sufficient to dispose of this reference without the need of addressing the other issues. Analysis 8.A perusal of the Bill of Costs dated 18th February 2025 clearly shows that the proposed taxation related to legal work which the Advocate rendered to the Client in Court of Appeal Civil Application No. E067 of 2024. Yet, the annexures which were affixed to the Bill relate to Court of Appeal Civil Application No. E429 of 2023. Thus, there was no connection between what the Bill professed to be the subject of the taxation and the annexures to it. 9.A perusal of the record before the Taxing Master reveals that the Client raised concern about the disparity between the Bill and the annexures. This is apparent from the Client’s advocates’ submissions dated 28th March 2025. 10.Despite this, the Advocate did not address the matter. As a matter of fact, the Advocate’s submissions dated 26th May 2025 before the Taxing Master reiterate the fact that the taxation related to Court of Appeal Civil Application No. E067 of 2024. 11.Despite the Bill of Costs showing that it related to and arose from proceedings in Court of Appeal Civil Application No. E067 of 2024 and notwithstanding the Client’s protestations that the annexures to the Bill spoke to something else, the Taxing Master did not address the matter either. Instead, he proceeded to undertake the taxation in respect of proceedings in Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 429 of 2023 notwithstanding that the Bill before him showed that the taxation related to Court of Appeal Civil Application No. E067 of 2024. And this, he did without the Bill first being amended. This was an error of principle. In proceeding the way he did, the Taxing Master disregarded the hallowed rule that parties are bound by their pleadings. Determination 12.Having regard to the foregoing, the court sets aside the impugned taxation ruling dated 19th June 2025. 13.The Advocate is at liberty to address the discrepancies relating to the subject of taxation in the impugned Bill of Costs to enable fresh taxation before a different taxing master. 14.Each party shall bear own costs of the reference. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ON THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026B. O. M. MANANIJUDGEIn the presence of:…………….for the Client…………….for the AdvocateOrderIn light of the directions issued on 12th July 2022 by her Ladyship, the Chief Justice with respect to online court proceedings, this decision has been delivered to the parties online with their consent, the parties having waived compliance with Rule 28 (3) of the ELRC Procedure Rules which requires that all judgments and rulings shall be dated, signed and delivered in the open court.