Munene v Kahuthu & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 017 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1798 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that each respondent sued individually in a case is entitled to separate costs, sending a taxed bill back for fresh calculation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether M.M Kimuli having been discharged from the proceedings on 3rd July 2018 was properly on record on taxation of the 4 Respondents' Bill of Costs
- 2.What costs of the Claim M.M. Kimuli sought from the court on 3rd July 2018 and what costs were granted
- 3.Whether the reference filed in respect of the Bill taxed on 18th December 2020 was filed within time
- 4.Whether the instruction fees and other items were correctly taxed in accordance with the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014
Key legal issues
#Whether instruction fees were correctly taxed
The instruction fee was wrongly awarded as one block instead of being granted to each of the four respondents individually, contrary to the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014, warranting re-taxation
The court noted the objectors' complaint that the instruction fee was taxed below the scale in the Remuneration Order of 2014 and that four different respondents were sued. It accepted that costs were payable to each respondent sued in their individual capacity. Because the instruction fees were given as one block, the court found it necessary to send the bill back for taxation afresh by a different Deputy Registrar.
Whether M.M Kimuli & Co. Advocates were properly on record
M.M Kimuli & Co. Advocates were properly on record for the new respondent, having been instructed afresh and filed a Notice of Appointment, and were therefore properly able to participate in taxation
The original four respondents were struck out of the claim with costs on 3rd July 2018. On 5th/3rd September 2018 the new respondent, Kenya Evangelical Lutheran Church, instructed M.M Kimuli & Co. Advocates who filed a Notice of Appointment. The court therefore held that counsel was properly on record for the new respondent and properly participated in the taxation.
Legal principles established
#- Where several respondents are sued in their individual capacity, costs including instruction fees are payable to each respondent individually
- An advocate discharged from proceedings who is later instructed afresh by a new respondent is properly on record and entitled to participate in taxation for that respondent
Court orders
#- 1.The Bill of Costs taxed at Kshs 157,860 on 18th December 2020 is returned back to a different Deputy Registrar in Nairobi to tax the bill afresh
- 2.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2009
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the decree and the taxation Ruling of 30th April 2020
The court did not grant the stay; it instead directed re-taxation of the bill before a different Deputy Registrar
Costs
Costs in the cause
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It is indeed true that costs were payable to each Respondent sued as they were all sued in their individual capacity.
It was therefore proper that M. M. Kimuli & Co. Advocates participate in the taxation as he was properly on record for the Respondent The Kenya Evangelical Lutheran Church.
Given this indication and especially given that instruction fees was given as one block, it would be important to have the bill in question returned back to a difierent Deputy Registrar in Nairobi to tax this bill afresh based on the law as expounded herein. These are the orders. Costs in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is internally inconsistent as to which bill was objected to and by whom, stating the bill was filed by the Claimants while the application describes the Respondents' bill of costs dated 6th August 2020
Conflicting dates appear for the filing of the Notice of Appointment by M.M Kimuli for the new respondent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Munene v Kahuthu & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 017 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1798 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Reference dated 25th January 2021 (Employment and Labour Relations Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1798/eng@2024-07-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.