Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedMiscellaneous Application (reinstatement application dated 15th February 2024)· [2024] KEELRC 2417 (KLR)

Mucheru Law LLP Advocates v Cementers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E290 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2417 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
4 October 2024
JRJames Rika
358 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled an advocate must tax his bill of costs in the court where he actually practised, not wherever he chooses to file.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi, delivered by James Rika, Judge, on 4th October 2024, disposes of an application dated 15th February 2024 by the Advocate, Mucheru LLP, seeking reinstatement of a Miscellaneous Application dismissed on 8th February 2024 for non-attendance by the parties. The Advocate, through the affidavit of Advocate Scort Sala sworn on 15th February 2024, explained that no notice of the hearing was received from the Court and asserted that the Respondent would suffer no prejudice if the application were reinstated. The underlying application sought taxation of the Advocate's costs arising from Milimani Chief Magistrate's Court C.M.C.C No. 6363 of 2013. The parties agreed that the reinstatement application be determined on the strength of written submissions filed and exchanged at the last mention on 30th July 2024. The Court confirmed, through the Court Assistant Emmanuel Kiprono, that the hearing date of 8th February 2024 had been scheduled by the Advocate himself, and that neither party attended. On the merits, the Court held that under Section 52 of the Advocates Act, Cap 16, an order for taxation of costs should be pursued in the court in which the Advocate was employed to prosecute or defend a matter. The Advocate was not employed and did not prosecute or defend any matter at the E&LRC, so there was no reason to file his Bill of Costs there. Finding no basis for reinstatement, the Court declined the application and ordered that the file be closed. No order on costs appears in the ruling.

Key legal issues

#
01

Proper forum for taxation of an Advocate's Bill of Costs

Holding

The Bill of Costs should be filed in the court where the Advocate was instructed, which was the Chief Magistrate's Court, not the E&LRC

Reasoning

Section 52 of the Advocates Act permits taxation where the Advocate was employed to prosecute or defend a matter. The Bill related to Milimani Chief Magistrate's Court C.M.C.C No. 6363 of 2013, and the Advocate was never employed nor acted in any matter at the E&LRC. There was therefore no basis for the E&LRC to entertain the taxation application, and no basis to reinstate the dismissed Miscellaneous Application.

p. 2
02

Reinstatement of an application dismissed for non-attendance

Holding

No basis was shown for reinstatement where the hearing date had been scheduled by the Advocate himself and there was no justification for non-attendance

Reasoning

The Court confirmed with the Court Assistant that the hearing date of 8th February 2024 was scheduled by the Advocate. Neither party attended, and the Advocate claimed no notice was received. Since the underlying application lacked merit in any event - the E&LRC had no jurisdiction over the Bill of Costs - the Court found no basis to reinstate the application.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An order for taxation of an Advocate's costs must be pursued in the court in which the Advocate was employed to prosecute or defend the matter

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Application filed by the Advocate dated 15th February 2024 is declined
  2. 2.This file is closed
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated; the matter arises from taxation of an Advocate's Bill of Costs under Section 52 of the Advocates Act, Cap 16, Laws of Kenya

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mucheru Law LLP Advocates v Cementers Limited (Miscellaneous Application E290 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2417 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Miscellaneous Application (reinstatement application dated 15th February 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2417/eng@2024-10-04

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