[2024] KEELRC 2528 (KLR)

[2024] KEELRC 2528 (KLR)

The court found that the application was unopposed and that the applicant had demonstrated that the Taxing Officer failed to provide reasons for the assessment of costs and did not apply the correct scale as per the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The absence of a response from the respondent and the lack of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELRC 2528 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Vincent Namai; Respondent: National Bank Of Kenya Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition E039 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Review Taxation of Costs
Outcome
application allowed; taxed costs set aside; bill to be re-taxed; costs of application to applicant
Judges
B Ongaya
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Review of Taxing Officer Decision, Instruction Fees, Advocates Remuneration Order
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Review of Taxing Officer Decision Instruction Fees Advocates Remuneration Order

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vincent Namai

Applicant

National Bank Of Kenya Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Review Taxation of Costs

  1. 1 Whether the Taxing Officer erred in certifying costs at Kshs. 382,385/= contrary to the applicable scale.
  2. 2 Whether the instruction fees were properly calculated based on the decretal sum of Kshs. 5,000,000/=.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a review and/or setting aside of the Taxing Officer's decision.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was unopposed and that the applicant had demonstrated that the Taxing Officer failed to provide reasons for the assessment of costs and did not apply the correct scale as per the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The absence of a response from the respondent and the lack of explanation from the Taxing Officer justified the setting aside of the taxed costs. The court ordered that the bill be re-taxed in accordance with the applicable law and due submissions, and awarded costs of the application to the applicant.

Court Disposition

application allowed; taxed costs set aside; bill to be re-taxed; costs of application to applicant

Orders

  • The decision of the Taxing Officer delivered on 26th August 2024 certifying costs at Kshs. 382,385/= is set aside.
  • The bill of costs shall be re-taxed taking into account due submissions and applicable law.