Lydia Amondi Okoth v Compact Freight System Limited [2021] KEELRC 1845 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused to overturn a costs ruling, confirming judges rarely interfere with a taxing officer's assessment absent an error of principle.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Master failed to consider the Respondent's submissions
The complaint is misleading; the Taxing Master expressly considered the Respondent's submissions, and the earlier statement that the Respondent had not filed a response did not dent this finding
The ruling by the Taxing Master expressly recorded that he considered the billed items and the Respondent's submissions together with the authorities cited therein before taxing the bill. The Claimant pointed the Court to this passage, and the Court found the Respondent's assertion that taxation proceeded without the Respondent's input to be misleading. An earlier inconsistent statement in the ruling did not undermine this conclusion.
Whether the general assessment of the Bill of Costs disclosed an error of principle
Taxation is not a matter of mathematical precision; the Court will not interfere merely because the award seems high or low, only where it is based on an error of principle or causes injustice
The Respondent argued arithmetically that the computation did not add up and that the bill should have been taxed at nil. The Court held that a reference on taxation is not an exercise in mathematical precision, adopting the settled position that taxation is a matter of opinion based on experience, and interference lies only where the award is manifestly excessive or based on an error of principle.
The entry of Kshs. 160,775 as the amount taxed off
It was an obvious typographical error which the Court is empowered to correct, not a ground for setting aside the ruling
The Respondent submitted that since the ruling showed Kshs. 160,775 as taxed off, the bill ought to have been taxed at nil. The Court held that a simple reading of the ruling revealed the entry to be an obvious typographical error which the Court has power to correct, and this did not constitute a basis for setting aside the taxation ruling.
Legal principles established
#- A court will only interfere with a taxing officer's award where it is so high or so low as to amount to an injustice, or where it is based on an error of principle
- A Judge will only interfere with the assessment of the Taxing Master in exceptional cases
- A court is empowered to correct an obvious typographical error in a taxation ruling
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent's Chamber Summons dated 5th March 2021 is declined with costs to the Claimant
- 2.The interim orders granted on 23rd March 2021 are vacated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference from a decision of the Taxing Master (Deputy Registrar) under the applicable taxation procedure of the Employment and Labour Relations Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lydia Amondi Okoth v Compact Freight System Limited [2021] KEELRC 1845 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1845/eng@2021-04-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.