[2018] KEELRC 1642 (KLR)
The court found that in cases where a party is represented by in-house counsel, only actual and verifiable expenses incurred by such counsel are recoverable as costs. The respondent/applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as receipts, to support the claimed disbursements of Kshs 229,355, which were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 1642 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Judith Jemeli Kesse; Respondent: Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 98 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Taxation Reference / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Review of Taxed Bill of Costs Out of Time and Review of Taxation
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the claimant/respondent
- Judges
- DKN Marete
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, In House Counsel Expenses, Review of Taxation, Party and Party Costs
- 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
Judith Jemeli Kesse
Claimant
Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Taxation Reference / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Review of Taxed Bill of Costs Out of Time and Review of Taxation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to review and set aside the order taxing the bill of costs.
- 2 Whether costs incurred by in-house counsel are recoverable as disbursements in taxation.
- 3 Whether the respondent provided sufficient evidence to support the claimed disbursements.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that in cases where a party is represented by in-house counsel, only actual and verifiable expenses incurred by such counsel are recoverable as costs. The respondent/applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as receipts, to support the claimed disbursements of Kshs 229,355, which were issued as imprest and per diem payments. The court agreed with the claimant/respondent that the amount of Kshs 18,625 awarded by the taxing master was appropriate and that the application for review lacked merit. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to the claimant/respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the claimant/respondent
Orders
- The application for leave to file for review of taxed bill of costs out of time is dismissed.
- The application to review, vary, or set aside the order taxing the bill of costs is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA
AT KERICHO
CAUSE NO. 98 OF 2016
(Before D. K. N. Marete)
JUDITH JEMELI KESSE.............……............................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
MOI TEACHING AND REFERRAL HOSPITAL.....RESPONDENT
RULING
This is an undated and incomplete application seeking the following orders of court;
1. THAT this court do grant leave to the Respondent to file for review of taxed bill of costs out of time.
2. That the court be pleased to review, vary and or set aside the order made on the 15th day of November, 2017 taxing the Bill of Costs in this matter and Kericho E&LR CAUSE NO. 98 of 2016 and that the Bill of Costs be taxed on merit.
3. That costs of this application be provided for.
It has no grounds in its support on the face of the record.
The claimant/respondent in a Replying Affidavit sworn on 7th May, 2018 opposes the application. Further, in her written submissions of even date, she submits as follows;
…a reference can only be filed against the taxation if it was undertaken under The Advocates Act and or the Advocates Remuneration Order. The instant reference is therefore incompetent and untenable.
It is therefore her case that this taxation having not been based on the Advocates Act or rules has no standing before court.
The respondent/applicant opens her case and submits as follows;
The petitioner before you for determination is a taxation reference dated 5th February 2018. The main Claim/Petition was dismissed on 21st February 2017. The Respondents/Petitioner were awarded costs. The Respondent filed a party and party bill of costs on 30th June 2017. On 15th November 2018, the taxing master of this court assessed the bill (as per the Advocates Act and Remuneration Order) at Kshs 18,625/= to be paid by the Claimant/Respondent. The Respondent/petitioner is aggrieved by the taxing off of its direct expenses in the sum of Kshs 229,355/=. The Petitioner/Respondent has filed a Chamber Summons dated 5th February 2018. He prays that the Respondent’s/Petitioner’s bill of costs be reviewed and the decision of the taxing master dated 15th November 2018 be set aside and the taxed off disbursements in the sum of Kshs.229,355/= be reinstated.
This is a contest between what is taxable or not taxable in the event of litigation by a party using an in-house lawyer as opposed to a practicing advocate. In the instant case, the respondent/applicant utilized the services of her in-house lawyer and now claims and insists on a payment of Kshs.229,355. 00 being costs of various imprest issued to such counsel to facilitate various attendances to court from Eldoret to Kericho. The claimant/respondent disputes this and agrees the amount of Kshs.18,625. 00 awarded by the taxing master.
I agree with the claimant/respondent that in the event of an in-house lawyer, the only amount payable is a refund of expenses incurred by the in-house counsel. This must be demonstrated by verifiable evidence – receipt, on the part of the claiming party. The respondent/applicants case of a refund of imprest issued and perdiem payment does not suffice.
I am therefore inclined to dismiss the application with costs to the claimant/respondent.
Delivered, dated and signed this 26th day of June, 2018.
D.K.Njagi Marete
JUDGE
Appearances
1. Mr. Kirima, senior legal officer for the respondent/applicant.
2. Mr. Momanyi instructed by Annasi Momanyi & Company Advocates for the Claimant/respondent.