Olus v Intra Health International (Cause 2161 of 2015) [2024] KEELRC 2379 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court extended time for an employer to challenge a Kshs.300,000 costs award, ruling that filing delays can be forgiven when a Taxing Master withholds the ruling.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether extension of time to file a reference out of a Taxing Officer's decision should be granted despite the applicant not invoking Rule 11(1) within 14 days
Extension of time was granted; the delay was not inordinate because the applicant only obtained the ruling on 22nd February, 2024 after unavailing requests for a copy.
The Applicant requested the ruling by letters dated 29th November, 2023 and 11th January, 2024 which went unanswered, obtaining the ruling only on 22nd February, 2024, and filed the application in March 2024. Rule 11(2) uses "may" rather than "shall", and the application was unopposed with parties negotiating. The interests of justice favoured ventilating the reference on the merits.
Whether failure by the Taxing Officer to provide reasons is fatal to a reference
No; reasons are typically contained in the ruling itself.
Relying on Ahmed Nassir v National Bank of Kenya and Bernard Gichohi Njira v Kanini Njira Kathendu & another, the Court noted that judicial authority is consistent that absence of separate reasons does not defeat a reference since the reasons are usually embedded in the ruling.
Whether the decretal sum awarded under Section 49(2) of the Employment Act could include agreed costs
The Respondent's contention that the Court did not order the Kshs.1,357,044.00 to be taxed was fortified by Section 49(2) of the Employment Act on statutory deductions.
Section 49(2) provides that payments made by the employer under that section are subject to statutory deductions, which supports the argument that the sum of Kshs.1,249,930.80 paid represented the net award, though the Court left the question for the reference.
Legal principles established
#- Taxation of costs is a special jurisdiction reserved to the Taxing Officer; the Court engages with it only by way of a Rule 11 reference.
- The word "may" in Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order renders the fourteen-day period after receipt of reasons permissive rather than mandatory, informing whether delay is inordinate.
Court orders
#- 1.Prayer No. 1 of the Chamber Summons dated 6th March, 2024 granted, extending time to enable the Applicant file and serve the Reference application
- 2.All other orders sought in the application struck out
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order (extension of time to file a reference against a Taxing Master's decision)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Olus v Intra Health International (Cause 2161 of 2015) [2024] KEELRC 2379 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2379/eng@2024-09-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.