Oracle Technology Systems (Kenya) Limited v Aluodo (Miscellaneous Application E222 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 409 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court set aside a Kshs 5.5 million instruction fee award because the taxing officer never explained how he calculated it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competence of the reference - wrong date of the Bill of Costs and timeliness of filing
The reference was competent: the date error was a technicality, and time under Rule 11(2) ran from receipt of the taxation ruling on 7th August 2024, with the application filed on 13th August 2024.
The application referred to a Bill dated 15th December 2022, but the grounds and affidavit showed the reference concerned the Bill amended on 19th April 2024. An error in dates does not go to substance, as dismissal would offend Article 159(2)(d). On timeliness, although the ruling was delivered on 8th July 2024, it was only availed on 7th August 2024 despite repeated requests, and Rule 11(2) allows fourteen days from receipt of reasons to apply to a judge.
Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle in awarding instruction fees of Kshs 5,500,000 and taxing the bill as drawn
The Taxing Officer erred in principle by failing to identify the value of the subject matter, failing to state the basic instruction fee, and failing to give reasons for allowing the bill as drawn.
Instruction fees are assessed on the value of the subject matter, which, where the suit was determined by judgment, ought to be the decretal amount. The decretal amount could not be ascertained because computations of commission and leave pay had not been done. The Taxing Officer awarded Kshs 5,500,000 without stating the basis, whether the amount claimed or the amount awarded, and without giving reasons, leaving his reasoning to speculation. This was an error of principle justifying interference under the First American Bank v Shah standard.
Legal principles established
#- An error in the dates of a Bill of Costs in an application is a technicality that does not defeat the substance of the reference, per Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution.
- Under Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the fourteen-day period for filing a reference before a judge runs from receipt of the taxing officer's reasons, not from the date of delivery of the ruling.
- A court may interfere with a taxing officer's decision only where it is shown the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee was manifestly excessive such as to indicate an error of principle.
- Instruction fees are charged based on the value of the subject matter, ascertained from the pleadings, judgment or settlement.
- A taxing officer who fails to identify the value of the subject matter, set out the basic instruction fee, or give reasons for allowing a bill as drawn commits an error of principle.
Court orders
#- 1.The taxation of the Bill of Costs amended on 19th April 2024 is set aside and remitted for taxation by a different Taxing Officer
- 2.There will be no order as to costs
- On appeal from
- Taxing Officer (Deputy Registrar), Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 14th December 2022, amended 19th April 2024, in ELRC Case No. 227 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order - reference to a judge against a taxing officer's decision
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Oracle Technology Systems (Kenya) Limited v Aluodo (Miscellaneous Application E222 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 409 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons Application dated 12th August 2024 (arising from Employment and Labour Relations Case No. 227 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/409/eng@2025-02-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.