Rutto v Hotel Waterbuck Limited & another (Cause 86 of 2018) [2022] KEELRC 1240 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court paused cost-collection for 14 days but confirmed that missing the 14-day deadline to challenge taxed costs forces you to ask permission to object late.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether execution of taxed party-and-party costs was irregular for want of service of a certificate of costs or an application to enter judgment
The court found no irregularity: a certificate of costs was issued on 22 April 2022 and warrants were properly applied for and signed by the Deputy Registrar on 6 May 2022.
The court examined the court records and found no notice of objection or request for reasons from the applicants was ever filed or stamped. The certificate of costs dated 22 April 2022 was signed, an application for execution was made and allowed, and warrants were signed by the Deputy Registrar on 6 May 2022. Nothing barred execution, so the applicants' claim of a faulty or unlawful process failed.
Whether the applicants filed a valid objection to the taxation and requested reasons
No objection or letter requesting reasons was found on the court record or digital platform; the documents annexed bore no receipt stamp.
The court inspected the records including the digital platform and found no trace of the alleged objection dated 15 March 2022. The annexed letter lacked a court receipt stamp, and the attached emails showed no accompanying attachments. The applicants also failed to annex the alleged objection to the application, leading to the finding that the proper procedure for objection and reference was not followed.
Whether a reference out of time should be permitted and execution stayed
Leave to file a reference out of time was granted within 14 days, with execution stayed for the same period conditional on payment of auctioneers' costs.
Applying paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the court noted the 14-day objection window had lapsed and the only recourse was an application to file the reference out of time, which the applicants had effectively made. The court allowed the reference to be filed within 14 days and, since such a reference was envisaged, stayed execution for 14 days on condition the applicants pay the auctioneers' costs.
Legal principles established
#- An objection to a taxation must be filed within 14 days of the taxing officer's decision; a party who has not done so must seek leave to file a reference out of time.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicants are allowed to file a reference out of time, to be filed within 14 days
- 2.Execution is stayed for 14 days on condition that the applicants pay the auctioneers' costs
- 3.Costs of the application to be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 12 and 13 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2014; Rules 17, 29 and 31 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016; Order 51 Rules 1, 2 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules; sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rutto v Hotel Waterbuck Limited & another (Cause 86 of 2018) [2022] KEELRC 1240 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/1240/eng@2022-07-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.