Murila v Langat & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1153 of 2014) [2024] KEELRC 683 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court cut a Kshs 1,000,000 fee award to Kshs 600,000 and excused a 7-day delay in challenging it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 7-day delay in filing the reference against the taxing officer's ruling should be excused and time enlarged
Yes - the delay of 7 days was not inordinate and was satisfactorily explained by the late receipt of the ruling and the need for Board of Trustees approval
The court applied the settled principles from Fahim Yasin Twaha and George Kagima Kariuki: delay must merely be explained, with no minimum or maximum period fixed by law. The Applicants explained the delay through late forwarding of the ruling by former advocates and the time taken to obtain Board approval. A 7-day delay was held reasonable, and no prejudice to the Claimant was shown.
Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in taxing instruction fees at Kshs 1,000,000, ten times the minimum instruction fee
Yes - despite the taxing officer's grounds of complexity, volume of documents and duration, the award was excessive; the court re-taxed instruction fees at Kshs 600,000 and getting up fees at Kshs 200,000
The court accepted the taxing officer had considered the relevant Schedule VI criteria (nature, importance, complexity, value, time expended) but nonetheless found Kshs 1,000,000 'quite excessive'. Exercising its own discretion, it reduced instruction fees to Kshs 600,000 and fixed getting up fees at Kshs 200,000, leaving other items untouched as they were not in issue.
Legal principles established
#- The law sets no minimum or maximum period of delay; any delay must be explained to the satisfaction of the court
- Extension of time is an equitable remedy, not a right, and the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis
- A party has a right to be represented by an advocate of their choice
Court orders
#- 1.The firm of P.K. Mbaabu allowed to come on record on behalf of the Respondents/Applicants
- 2.Time enlarged to file the reference to the ruling of the taxing officer dated 15th September 2023 and the application admitted as duly filed
- 3.The instruction fees re-taxed and awarded at Kshs 600,000/-
- 4.Getting up fees fixed at Kshs 200,000
- 5.The rest of the items not re-taxed as they are not in issue
- 6.Total bill of costs allowed at Kshs 1,390,269.67 - 533,333 = 856,936.67
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order empowering the High Court (and this Court) to enlarge time fixed by subparagraph (1) or (2)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Murila v Langat & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1153 of 2014) [2024] KEELRC 683 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/683/eng@2024-03-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.