[2025] KEELRC 986 (KLR)
The court found that both parties concurred that the Taxing Officer's Ruling on the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs contained errors of principle, particularly regarding the increase of instructions fees by 50% without prior taxation of party-party costs. Given this concurrence and the submissions on record, the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELRC 986 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kemboy Law Advocates; Respondent: Narok County Government
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E035 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Reference Against Taxation of Advocate Client Bill of Costs
- Outcome
- reference allowed; ruling of Taxing Officer set aside by consent; parties to consult and agree on Bill of Costs; if no agreement, re-taxation before another Taxing Officer; no order as to costs
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Bill of Costs, Errors of Principle in Taxation, Instructions Fees, Review of Taxing Officer Decision
- 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
Kemboy Law Advocates
Applicant
Narok County Government
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Reference Against Taxation of Advocate Client Bill of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Taxing Officer committed errors of principle in taxing the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs.
- 2 Whether the instructions fees were properly increased by 50% in the absence of taxed party-party costs.
- 3 Whether the Ruling of the Taxing Officer should be set aside by consent of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both parties concurred that the Taxing Officer's Ruling on the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs contained errors of principle, particularly regarding the increase of instructions fees by 50% without prior taxation of party-party costs. Given this concurrence and the submissions on record, the court allowed the reference, set aside the Taxing Officer's Ruling, and directed the parties to consult and agree on the Bill of Costs. If agreement is not reached, the Bill of Costs is to be re-taxed before a different Taxing Officer. The court emphasized that such matters are best resolved by the parties themselves, given their understanding of the facts and law, rather than...
Court Disposition
reference allowed; ruling of Taxing Officer set aside by consent; parties to consult and agree on Bill of Costs; if no agreement, re-taxation before another Taxing Officer; no order as to costs
Orders
- The Application filed by the Advocate dated 6th August 2024 is allowed.
- The Ruling of the Taxing Officer dated 9th July 2024 is set aside with the consent of the parties.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
Kemboy Law Advocates v Narok County Government (Miscellaneous Application E035 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 986 (KLR) (28 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELRC 986 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
Miscellaneous Application E035 of 2023
J Rika, J
March 28, 2025
Between
Kemboy Law Advocates
Applicant
and
Narok County Government
Respondent
Ruling
1. This Application bears resemblance to Miscellaneous Application No. E030 of 2023, which is between the same Parties.
2. The Advocate herein however, represented the Client in a different Claim, E&LRC Cause No. 61 of 2018. He filed an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs, which was taxed at Kshs. 468,005, in a Ruling of the Taxing Officer, dated 9th July 2024.
3. Taxation in both matters took place before the same Taxing Officer.
4. The Advocate filed reference, based on similar grounds, as advanced in Miscellaneous Application No. E030 of 2023. He argues that taxation had errors of principle.
5. The Client opposes the reference, through the Affidavit of its Secretary, John Mayiani Tuya, sworn on a date which has been blurred by the stamp of the Commissioner for Oaths.
6. Tuya agrees with the Ruling of the Taxing Master in his Affidavit, asking the Court to decline the reference.
7. Parties agreed to have the reference considered and determined, on the strength of their Affidavits and Submissions on record. They confirmed filing and exchange of the latter, at the last mention before the Court, on 29th January 2025.
The Court Finds: - 8. In its Submissions dated 27th January 2025, the Client makes a counter-reference, submitting that the Taxing Officer erred, by increasing the instructions fees by 50%, while she was only allowed to do so, where Party-Party costs had already been taxed.
9. The Client, like the Advocate, urges the Court to review and set aside the Ruling of the Taxing Officer. The Client’s Submissions slightly depart from its position, stated in the Affidavit of Secretary Tuya.
10. The Court has no reason not to grant the reference, in light of the concurrence of the Parties, that taxation had errors of principle.
11. It is important for the Court to state however, that this is a matter that the involved Advocates, can constructively engage in, consult, and come up with a settlement of the Bill of Costs, without taxing judicial economy.
12. The Claimant in E&LRC Cause No. 61 of 2018, in which the Advocate defended the Client, sought compensation for unfair termination and terminal benefits, quantified at Kshs. at Kshs. 1,098,778. The Advocate sought to be paid instructions fees alone, at Kshs. 700,000. The Taxing Officer granted the item at Kshs. 150,000.
13. The Bill of Costs was taxed at Kshs. 468,005, which in the cursory view of this Court, considering the value of the subject matter, was neither too high nor too low.
14. The Parties and their Advocates need to come together, and reason together.
15. As the Parties both disagree with the Taxing Officer, the Court shall allow the reference. The Advocates should however consult and settle this Bill of Costs, instead of constantly revisiting the Courts, and chasing the best outcomes. They both understand the facts and the law, and are best suited to settle the Bill of Costs at their own level, without the need for re-taxation and probable other references.
It Is Ordered: -a.The Application filed by the Advocate dated 6th August 2024 is allowed, and the Ruling of the Taxing Officer dated 9th July 2024, set aside with the consent of the Parties, as expressed in their Submissions on record.b.The Advocates are directed to constructively engage, consult, and agree on the Bill of Costs.c.In event they do not agree, the Bill of Costs shall be re-taxed before another Taxing Officer.d.No order on the costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAKURU, THIS 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025. JAMES RIKAJUDGE