Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedChamber Summons dated 19th July 2021 (not stated)· [2022] KEELRC 1383 (KLR)

Ahmed v National Bank of Kenya (Petition 117 of 2018) [2022] KEELRC 1383 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
28 June 2022
NMNzioki wa Makau
750 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment Court confirmed that a settlement agreement saying each side bears its own costs blocks any later claim for legal fees from the other party.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner, who had succeeded in an employment petition in which Justice Byram Ongaya found his termination unfair and unlawful, and whose compensation award was later varied on review to Kshs. 31,315,680/- less PAYE, filed a Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 7th December 2020 drawn at Kshs. 2,335,722/-. The Deputy Registrar (Taxing Officer) struck out the bill on the basis of a consent dated 3rd December 2020, adopted and endorsed by Justice Nduma Nderi on 7th December 2020, under which the parties agreed to bear their own costs. The Petitioner filed a Chamber Summons dated 19th July 2021 as a reference from that decision, seeking to vary or set aside the ruling and to remit the bill to a different Taxing Officer, arguing that the consent only compromised the review application and not the costs of the main petition. The application was unopposed. The court framed the single issue as whether the parties were to bear their own costs or whether the Taxing Master should tax the bill. The court held that the consent removed the question of costs from the Taxing Master's jurisdiction; the precision of the costs order in the consent indicated it was not confined to the application. Taxation would be against the parties' expressed wishes. The reference was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Taxing Officer erred in striking out the Party and Party Bill of Costs on the basis of a consent dated 3rd December 2020 that the applicant contended applied only to the review application

Holding

The consent, which provided that each party bear their own costs, was treated as covering the costs of the suit, and the Taxing Master correctly declined to tax the bill

Reasoning

The court observed that the Petitioner was successful and the award was varied on review to Kshs. 31,315,000/- less PAYE, but the consent noted that each party was to bear their own costs. The court reasoned that the consent removed costs from the Taxing Master's jurisdiction, and that the precision of the costs order in the consent indicated it was not confined to the application. Taxing the bill would defeat the parties' expressed wishes.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A consent recorded between parties agreeing that each party bears their own costs removes the question of costs from the Taxing Master's jurisdiction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The reference/application dated 19th July 2021 is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs
On appeal from
Deputy Registrar / Taxing Officer (Employment and Labour Relations Court)
Taxation of Party and Party Bill dated 7th December 2020; Ruling delivered 22nd/23rd April 2021
Jurisdiction invoked
Reference from a decision of the Deputy Registrar sitting as Taxing Officer (not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ahmed v National Bank of Kenya (Petition 117 of 2018) [2022] KEELRC 1383 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Chamber Summons dated 19th July 2021 (not stated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/1383/eng@2022-06-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.