Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherNot stated in the judgment

Ogaro v Nyayo Tea Zones Development Corporation & another (Petition E178 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 458 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 February 2025
BOByram Ongaya
247 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 employment court awarded partial costs despite a settlement, showing that settling a case doesn't automatically mean each side pays its own legal fees.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This short ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi, delivered by the Principal Judge, Byram Ongaya, on 21 February 2025, deals solely with the question of costs after a petition concerning an impugned recruitment was settled. The petitioner and the 1st respondent recorded a consent in court on 17 December 2024 allowing the recruitment to proceed with the petitioner's participation, and the petition was marked settled subject to submissions on costs. The 1st respondent, through Yeli & Company Advocates, submitted that each party should bear its own costs in promotion of an amicable relationship, noting that the respondent lost time while an interim order stopping the recruitment was in place. The petitioner, through Mr. Namada Simoni, countered that the interim order demonstrated the merit of the petition and that the respondent was obliged to conduct the recruitment in accordance with the law. The court held that, given the compromise, the parties' continuing relationship including the petitioner's participation in the recruitment, and settlement terms favouring the petitioner, partial costs of Kshs. 50,000.00 payable by the 1st respondent by 1 April 2025 would balance justice between the parties. Orders were issued accordingly. The judgment contains no citations of statutes or case law and resolves no substantive claim, only the incidental costs question.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether, upon the parties' consent settling the petition, the petitioner is entitled to costs of the petition, and in what measure.

Key legal issues

#
01

Costs following settlement of a petition by consent

Holding

Despite the consent settling the petition, the petitioner was awarded partial costs of Kshs. 50,000.00 because the settlement terms favoured the petitioner and the parties are in a continuing relationship.

Reasoning

The court weighed the consent recorded on 17.12.2024 allowing the recruitment to proceed with the petitioner's participation against the petitioner's entitlement to costs. The 1st respondent sought each party bearing own costs, citing time lost under the interim order; the petitioner argued the interim order showed a meritorious case and that the respondent was bound to recruit lawfully. The court balanced these, awarding partial costs as a proportionate outcome preserving the ongoing relationship.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Where parties compromise a dispute by consent and remain in a continuing relationship, the court may award partial costs to balance justice between the parties.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 1st respondent to pay the petitioner Kshs. 50,000.00 as partial costs of the petition, payable by April 1, 2025.

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

BO
Byram OngayaPrincipal Judge
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Not stated in the judgment

Relief refused

#

Full costs of the petition

The dispute was compromised by consent, the parties are in a continuing relationship, and a partial costs award would balance justice.

p. 1

Costs

Kshs. 50,000.00 payable by the 1st respondent to the petitioner as partial costs, by April 1, 2025.

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

parties having compromised the dispute and the parties being in a continuing relationship including the petitioner's participation in the recruitment process, and, the terms of the settlement consent order being in favour of the petitioner, Kshs. 50,000.00 being in favour of the petitioner and payable by April 1, 2025 as partial costs will balance justice for the parties.
p. 1Partial costs award upon consent settlement
Orders to issue accordingly.
p. 1Final orders

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment does not state the case title, petition number, or neutral citation; these cannot be verified from the text.

minor

Only the 1st respondent is referred to; the judgment does not disclose whether there are other respondents.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ogaro v Nyayo Tea Zones Development Corporation & another (Petition E178 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 458 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/458/eng@2025-02-21

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