Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedMiscellaneous Application (reference) from Kilgoris PM's Employment Cause Number 2 of 2019· [2025] KEELRC 128 (KLR)

Kipteng v Good Hope Sacco Limited (Miscellaneous Application E038 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 128 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
28 January 2025
JRJames Rika
742 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court reopened a litigant's file, confirming you cannot be denied the chance to claim your court-awarded legal costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant was a successful Claimant in Kilgoris PM's Employment Cause Number 2 of 2019, where a consent order released a decretal sum of Kshs. 1,675,271 to her. She later filed a Bill of Costs relating to two applications, seeking a staggering Kshs. 636,047, having drawn the Bill herself in person. Senior Resident Magistrate Hon. W.C. Waswa, in a ruling delivered on 24th July 2024, found there was no proper claim for assessment of costs - the Bill not conforming to Order 21 Rules 9A, 9B and 9C of the Civil Procedure Rules - and closed the file, with leave to appeal. The Applicant filed this miscellaneous application characterized as a reference, seeking setting aside of that ruling, taxation of the Bill before another Magistrate, and interest on taxed costs at 14% per annum. The Respondent indicated a Notice of Preliminary Objection had been filed, but no Notice, Response or submissions were traceable in the physical file. Justice Rika held that although the Bill was exorbitant and the Claimant's pursuit of costs misguided, there were orders for costs on record which she ought not to have been prevented from pursuing; closure of the file before she could exhaust that pursuit was not the right decision. The application was partly allowed: the file was ordered reopened, the Claimant permitted to file a fresh Bill of Costs complying with all procedures, to be taxed by another Magistrate other than Hon. Waswa. She was advised to seek legal advice. No order was made on costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the subordinate court was right to close the file for want of a proper claim for assessment of costs

Holding

The closure of the file was not the right decision; the orders granting costs did not fall away merely because the Bill of Costs as filed did not conform to Order 21 Rules 9A, 9B and 9C

Reasoning

The Magistrate rejected the Claimant's Bill of Costs for non-conformity with Order 21 Rules 9A, 9B and 9C and closed the file. The Court held that although the Bill was exorbitant and drawn by the Claimant in person, there were on record orders made for costs on certain applications which the Claimant ought not to have been prevented from pursuing. The Claimant should have the opportunity to present a proper claim for costs while the file remains open.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Closing a file before a litigant has exhausted her pursuit of costs, where orders for costs exist on record, is not the right decision

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application by the Applicant/Claimant is partly allowed
  2. 2.The file at Kilgoris PM's Employment Cause Number E002 of 2019 shall be reopened
  3. 3.The Applicant/Claimant may file her Bill of Costs afresh, complying with all the procedures over which her previous Bill of Costs was rejected
  4. 4.The fresh Bill of Costs be taxed by any other Magistrate with the requisite jurisdiction, other than Hon. Waswa
  5. 5.The Applicant/Claimant is advised to seek legal advice from a qualified Legal Practitioner, in her pursuit of costs
  6. 6.No order on the costs
On appeal from
Kilgoris PM's Court
Employment Cause Number 2 of 2019
Jurisdiction invoked
Provisions of the Constitution, the Civil Procedure Act and the Advocates Remuneration Order invoked by the Applicant

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kipteng v Good Hope Sacco Limited (Miscellaneous Application E038 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 128 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Miscellaneous Application (reference) from Kilgoris PM's Employment Cause Number 2 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/128/eng@2025-01-28

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