Kemunto v Leo Investment Limited t/a The Concord Hotels (Cause 539 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 1762 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed an employer's challenge to a Kshs.192,205 costs award, confirming ELRC taxation follows High Court rules and challenges need specific proof.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Taxing Master erred in principle by applying Schedule VI instead of Schedule VII of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014
No error of principle; Schedule VI correctly applies to proceedings in the High Court and Schedule VII applies to subordinate courts, and the ELRC is not a court subordinate to the High Court
The court observed that Schedule VI addresses costs of proceedings in the High Court while Schedule VII addresses costs in subordinate courts. Applying Schedule VII would imply the ELRC is subordinate to the High Court, contrary to Article 162(2) of the Constitution, which confers on the ELRC the status of a superior court of equal standing.
Whether the applicant demonstrated an error of principle or manifest excess justifying interference with the taxation
No; the applicant did not isolate any specific item objected to, made no allegation of specific error of principle, and adduced no evidence
The supporting affidavit made no reference to any error of principle and no allegation that the Taxing Officer considered or failed to consider any particular circumstance. The blanket objection to the entire Bill of Costs suggested, without evidence, that the Taxing Officer got everything wrong, which the court rejected.
Whether the Taxing Master failed to consider the applicant's submissions
The allegation was unsubstantiated; the applicant did not attach the submissions or identify the issues said to have been ignored, and in any event submissions are neither evidence nor pleadings
The applicant did not attach a copy of the submissions for the court's perusal nor demonstrate which arguments were ignored. Relying on authority, the court held that while courts should consider submissions, they are not evidence or pleadings and are not binding on the court.
Legal principles established
#- A court will not interfere with a taxing officer's decision unless it is shown the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee awarded was manifestly excessive so as to justify an inference of error of principle
- Schedule VI of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014 governs costs of proceedings in the High Court; Schedule VII governs subordinate courts, and the ELRC is not subordinate to the High Court
- Submissions are neither evidence nor pleadings and are not binding on the court
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons dated 6th April, 2023 is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Application by Chamber Summons under Clause 11 of the Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) Order, 2014 to a judge; reference to Article 162(2) of the Constitution on the status of the Employment and Labour Relations Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Adipo v Self Help Africa (Cause E019 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1155 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1155 (KLR)24 Apr 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kemunto v Leo Investment Limited t/a The Concord Hotels (Cause 539 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 1762 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No 539 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1762/eng@2023-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.