Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedChamber Summons dated 5th December 2024 (Reference arising from Nairobi MCELRC No E1871 of 2023)· [2025] KEELRC 577 (KLR)

V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Essajee Amijee (E.A) Limited (Miscellaneous Application E059 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 577 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 February 2025
LNLinnet Ndolo
1,326 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court set aside a legal fees taxation because the company's written objections were ignored, sending the bill for fresh taxation before a different Taxing Master.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Client, Essajee Amijee (E.A) Ltd, filed a reference by Chamber Summons dated 5th December 2024 seeking to set aside a taxation ruling delivered by Hon D.O Mbeja, Taxing Master, on 17th July 2024, in which an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 27th February 2024 was taxed at Kshs. 72,450 in favour of the Advocate, Onesmus Msafiri Mulatya. The Client contended that it was condemned unheard: it had filed a replying affidavit and evidence of payments totalling Kshs. 760,000 across twelve employment causes, but the Taxing Master concluded the Bill was undefended. It further argued the Taxing Master erred in principle by awarding 50% above scale costs when no Party-to-Party costs had been taxed and the underlying matters remained pending, citing Mumias Sugar Company Limited v Professor Tom Ojienda & Associates. The Advocate opposed through a replying affidavit sworn by Dr. Vincent Chokaa, denying any payment evidence or fee agreement under Section 45 of the Advocates Act, and maintaining an Advocate may tax a Bill at any stage of proceedings. The Court, per Linnet Ndolo J, found from the Taxing Master's own ruling that the Client's input was not taken into account. On that ground alone, invoking the right to be heard, the Court set aside the taxation and remitted the Bill of Costs for re-taxation before another Taxing Master other than Hon D.O Mbeja. The ruling was delivered virtually at Nairobi on 27th February 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Right to be heard in taxation proceedings

Holding

The taxation was set aside because the Client's response to the Bill, though on record, was not considered by the Taxing Master, breaching the right to a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution.

Reasoning

The parties gave divergent accounts of the Client's participation: the Advocate alleged non-response; the Client alleged its reply was ignored. The Court did not resolve the factual dispute but found that the Taxing Master's own ruling showed the Client's input was disregarded, warranting interference on that ground alone.

p. 4
02

Remittal for re-taxation

Holding

The Bill of Costs was remitted for re-taxation before a different Taxing Master, excluding Hon D.O Mbeja.

Reasoning

Having found the taxation proceedings procedurally flawed, the appropriate remedy was to set aside the ruling and direct fresh taxation before another Taxing Master to ensure impartiality and a fresh hearing of both parties.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a party's input on a Bill of Costs is on record but was not taken into account by the Taxing Master, the taxation offends the right to be heard and will be set aside.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Set aside the taxation of the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs by Hon D.O Mbeja delivered on 17th July 2024
  2. 2.Remit the Bill of Costs for re-taxation before another Taxing Master, other than Hon D.O Mbeja

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 50
  • Advocates ActSection 45

Cases cited (1)

  • Mumias Sugar Company Limited v Professor Tom Ojienda & Associates
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Reference against a Taxing Master's ruling on an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs (Advocates Act)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Essajee Amijee (E.A) Limited (Miscellaneous Application E059 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 577 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 5th December 2024 (Reference arising from Nairobi MCELRC No E1871 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/577/eng@2025-02-27

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