[2018] KEELRC 2099 (KLR)
The court held that the Deputy Registrar, as taxing master, erred by taxing the bill of costs beyond the express limits set by the trial judge, which restricted costs to instruction fees and two court attendances due to the matter having proceeded by written submissions without a hearing. Since there was no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 2099 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mercyline Makungu; Applicant: Rosemary Cherop; Applicant: Violet Yandunyi Evayo; Applicant: Jackson Akavega; Applicant: Phoebe Jelagat Maru; Respondent: Binscape Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 301 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Taxation Reference / Ruling on Reference From Taxation by Deputy Registrar
- Outcome
- Reference allowed; taxed bill of costs set aside in part; costs awarded as per judgment.
- Judges
- MN Nduma
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Costs Award, Instructions Fee, Court Attendance Fees
- 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
Mercyline Makungu
Applicant
Rosemary Cherop
Applicant
Violet Yandunyi Evayo
Applicant
Jackson Akavega
Applicant
Phoebe Jelagat Maru
Applicant
Binscape Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Taxation Reference / Ruling on Reference From Taxation by Deputy Registrar
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Deputy Registrar erred in taxing the bill of costs beyond the limits set by the trial judge.
- 2 Whether the costs should be limited to instruction fees and two attendances as per the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Deputy Registrar, as taxing master, erred by taxing the bill of costs beyond the express limits set by the trial judge, which restricted costs to instruction fees and two court attendances due to the matter having proceeded by written submissions without a hearing. Since there was no application to review or appeal the judgment on costs, the bill of costs must be confined to the amounts specified in the judgment. The court set aside the taxed bill of costs in excess of these limits and awarded the claimants costs strictly in accordance with the judgment.
Court Disposition
Reference allowed; taxed bill of costs set aside in part; costs awarded as per judgment.
Orders
- The bill of costs is limited to instruction fees of Kshs.375,000 and two court attendances at Kshs.7,100 each.
- The rest of the taxed bill of costs is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT KISUMU
CAUSE NO. 301 OF 2013
(Before Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma)
MERCYLINE MAKUNGU...................................1ST CLAIMANT
ROSEMARY CHEROP........................................2ND CLAIMANT
VIOLET YANDUNYI EVAYO.............................3RD CLAIMANT
JACKSON AKAVEGA..........................................4TH CLAIMANT
PHOEBE JELAGAT MARU................................5TH CLAIMANT
=VERSUS=
BINSCAPE LIMITED..............................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The Applicant prays that there be a reference to this court from the taxation by the Deputy Registrar as a taxing master of this court and the court be pleased to hear the objection by the Applicant on taxation of bill of cost dated 3rd October, 2017 given on 6th December, 2017 and make decision on items 1 to 42 and the total cost of Kshs.673,425 awarded by the taxing master be reviewed.
2. The grounds for the objection are that the taxation was done ex parte and in disregard of the express judgment by the trial Judge that “The Respondent shall pay Claimant’s costs limited to instructions fees and 2 attendances only as there was no hearing, the parties havingproceeded by way of written submissions.”
3. There was no application to review the Judgment of the court with regard to the award of costs nor has there been any appeal to the Court of Appeal by the Claimant on the limited award of costs.
4. It is clear therefore that the bill of costs must be limited to the instructions fee in the sum of Kshs.375,000 as per Claimants bill of Cost filed on 4th October, 2017 and two court attendances on 29th April, 2014 and 24th May, 2016 in the sum of (7,100 x 2) respectively.
5. The rest of the taxed bill of costs is set aside as was taxed in disregard of the Judgment by the trial judge.
6. The claimant is therefore awarded costs in the sum of Kshs.389,200.
Ruling Dated, Signed and delivered this 12th day of April, 2018
Mathews N. Nduma
Judge
Appearances:-
Ms. Chesol for Claimant
Mr. Sutel for Respondent
Chrispo – Court Clerk