Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNotice of Motion dated 20th January 2025 (ELRC, Nyeri)· [2025] KEELRC 800 (KLR)

Ken Muriuki & Peter Kirimi Mbogo t/a Mbogo & Muriuki Advocates v County Government of Isiolo (Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 800 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
12 March 2025
OMOnesmus N Makau
876 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court awarded an advocate Kshs. 24.3 million plus 14% interest against Isiolo County after the county missed the strict 14-day deadline to challenge taxed costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant advocates moved the ELRC at Nyeri under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order seeking entry of judgment against the County Government of Isiolo for Kshs.24,304,693, being client/advocate costs taxed and allowed on 17th December 2024 and certified on 17th January 2025, together with interest at 14% per annum from the date of taxation and costs of the motion. The respondent filed grounds of opposition asking the court to withhold judgment until its reference dated 23rd January 2025 was heard. The applicant argued, relying on George Miyare v Evans Gor Semelango (Aburili J), that the reference was filed 48 days after the taxing officer's decision and was therefore time barred, and that Order 50 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules - which freezes time during the December/January recess - does not apply to paragraph 11 ARO proceedings. The court framed two issues: whether the reference was time barred, and whether the application should be allowed. Makau J held that a reference must be lodged within 14 days of taxation, that the recess-freezing rule has no application to ARO references, and that the respondent's reference was therefore time barred and could not halt determination of the motion. Noting that a certificate of costs binds the parties until set aside and that no setting aside had occurred, the court allowed the motion as prayed in prayers 1, 2 and 3, entering judgment for Kshs.24,304,693 with 14% interest from taxation and costs to the applicant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the respondent's reference challenging the taxation was time barred

Holding

The reference filed 48 days after the taxing officer's decision was time barred; the December/January court recess freeze under Order 50 Rule 4 CPR does not apply to paragraph 11 ARO proceedings.

Reasoning

The court adopted Aburili J's decision in George Miyare, holding that the 14-day window under paragraph 11 of the ARO applies, and that Order 50 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which freezes time from 21st December to 13th January, does not extend that window. Costs were determined on 17th December 2024 and the reference was filed on 24th January 2025, 48 days later, well outside the prescribed period.

p. 2
02

Whether judgment should be entered on the certificate of costs

Holding

Since the certificate of costs had not been set aside, it bound the parties and judgment was entered in terms of prayers 1, 2 and 3 of the motion.

Reasoning

The applicant produced a certificate of costs issued on 17th January 2025 following taxation of Kshs.24,304,693 on 17th December 2024. The only obstacle raised was the pending reference, which the court found time barred. With the certificate still standing and binding, the statutory route under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act for entering judgment was satisfied.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Order 50 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, freezing time during the December/January recess, does not apply to the time for filing objections and references under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
  • A reference to challenge a taxing officer's decision on costs must be filed within 14 days of the decision.
  • A certificate of costs issued by the taxing officer is binding on the parties until set aside.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered in favour of Mbogo & Muriuki Advocates against The County Government of Isiolo for Kshs. 24,304,693 pursuant to the certificate of costs
  2. 2.Interest at 14% per annum to accrue on Kshs. 24,304,693 from the date of taxation until payment in full
  3. 3.Costs of the application borne by the respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ken Muriuki & Peter Kirimi Mbogo t/a Mbogo & Muriuki Advocates v County Government of Isiolo (Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 800 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 20th January 2025 (ELRC, Nyeri). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/800/eng@2025-03-12

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