AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially Allowed· [2025] KEELRC 382 (KLR)
Ogentoto v Mega Pack (K) Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 101 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 382 (KLR)
Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
14 February 2025
2,323 words in judgment
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#A Nakuru court corrected a lawyer's taxed costs bill only where court sittings never happened and totals were wrong, leaving most items intact.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#The Respondent/Applicant, an advocate, filed a reference by chamber summons dated 30th August 2023 seeking to set aside the ruling of Honourable M. Kyalo, Deputy Registrar of the Employment and Labour Relations Court, delivered on 15th August 2023 taxing a party and party bill of costs dated 17th October 2022 at Kshs. 335,730 out of a claimed Kshs. 369,680. The applicant complained that the taxing master ignored the principles in Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, awarded costs unsupported by documents, taxed items for court sittings that never took place, and produced totals disproportionate to the decretal sum of Kshs. 28,500. The Claimant/Respondent opposed, arguing the reference was filed out of time under Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2009, that the taxing master enjoys broad discretion and need not follow submissions, and citing authority that a judge interferes only on an error of principle or where the award is manifestly excessive. The Claimant/Respondent filed no formal response but argued the matter through submissions. Deciding that the sole issue was whether the reference was merited, the court applied the Kipkorir, Tito and Kiara and First American Bank principles. It found specific items flawed: items 9, 11 and 12 were taxed for a sitting when the court did not sit; item 16 was taxed although parties did not attend; item 17 related to a date not existing in the court record; and item 52's total and gross figures were erroneous. The reference was upheld in part: most items were upheld, items 9, 11, 12, 16 and 17 were referred to the Deputy Registrar for revision, item 52 was to be recalculated, and the file was to be placed before the Deputy Registrar by 3rd March 2025. Judgment was delivered virtually at Nakuru on 14th February 2025 by Anna Ngibuini Mwaure, Judge.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether the Taxing Master's decision on the party & party bill of costs dated 17th October 2022 should be set aside
Holding
Partially - specific items based on court sittings that did not occur, a non-existent court date, and erroneous totals were referred back for revision and recalculation, while the rest of the taxation was upheld
Reasoning
The court applied the principle that a judge will not disturb a taxing officer's discretion absent an error of principle. On examining the record, it found items 9, 11 and 12 taxed for a sitting when the court did not sit, item 16 taxed when parties did not attend, item 17 relating to a date absent from the court record, and item 52 containing erroneous totals. Those items warranted intervention; the balance of the bill was properly taxed.
p. 5
Legal principles established
#- A court interferes with a taxing officer's decision only where an error of principle in assessing costs is shown and explained
Court orders
#- 1.The decision of the taxing officer in respect of items 1,2,4,5,6,8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49 and 51 in the bill of costs dated 17th October 2022 is upheld
- 2.The decision of the taxing officer in respect of items 9, 11, 12, 16 and 17 be referred to the Deputy Registrar of Employment and Labour Relations Court for revision
- 3.Item 52 on the bill of costs claimed as Total Kshs.204,770/= and Gross Kshs.369,680/= to be recalculated by the Deputy Registrar Employment and Labour Relations Court as they are erroneous
- 4.The file to be placed before the Deputy Registrar by 3rd March 2025 for recalculation
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2009 - reference by chamber summons to a Judge against a Taxing Master's decision
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ogentoto v Mega Pack (K) Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 101 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 382 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/382/eng@2025-02-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.