Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedMiscellaneous Application (Reference) arising from E&LRC Cause No. 61 of 2018; related to Miscellaneous Application No. E030 of 2023· [2025] KEELRC 986 (KLR)

Kemboy Law Advocates v Narok County Government (Miscellaneous Application E035 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 986 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
28 March 2025
597 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a reference by an Advocate against the Ruling of a Taxing Officer dated 9th July 2024, which taxed the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs arising from the Advocate's defence of the Client in E&LRC Cause No. 61 of 2018 at Kshs. 468,005. The underlying claim, for compensation for unfair termination and terminal benefits, was quantified at Kshs. 1,098,778; the Advocate had sought instruction fees of Kshs. 700,000, and the Taxing Officer granted that item at Kshs. 150,000. The Advocate alleged errors of principle in the taxation, on grounds similar to those in a related matter, Miscellaneous Application No. E030 of 2023. The Client, through the affidavit of its Secretary, John Mayiani Tuya, initially supported the Taxing Officer's Ruling and asked the Court to decline the reference. However, in submissions dated 27th January 2025, the Client made a counter-reference, contending that the Taxing Officer erred in increasing instruction fees by 50% where party-party costs had not been taxed, and also urged that the Ruling be set aside. Both matters were determined on affidavits and submissions by consent. Holding that it had no reason to refuse a reference where both parties concurred that taxation was attended by errors of principle, and noting that the taxed figure was, on a cursory view, neither too high nor too low, the Court allowed the reference and set aside the Ruling. It directed the parties' Advocates to consult and agree on the Bill of Costs, failing which it would be re-taxed before a different Taxing Officer, and made no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the taxation of the Advocate-Client Bill of Costs at Kshs. 468,005 was affected by errors of principle

Holding

The reference was allowed on the concurrence of both parties that there were errors of principle; the Court observed that the taxed figure was, in its cursory view, neither too high nor too low

Reasoning

The Advocate filed a reference alleging errors of principle, and the Client in its submissions made a counter-reference alleging the Taxing Officer erred in increasing instruction fees by 50% absent taxed party-party costs. With both parties agreeing taxation was flawed, the Court allowed the reference and set the Ruling aside, directing the parties to settle the Bill or have it re-taxed before a different Taxing Officer.

p. 2
02

Whether the Court should nonetheless retain the taxed figure

Holding

The Court expressed the view that the taxation was reasonable given the value of the subject matter, but this did not prevent setting aside on the parties' concurrence

Reasoning

The underlying claim in E&LRC Cause No. 61 of 2018 was quantified at Kshs. 1,098,778 and the Advocate had sought Kshs. 700,000 in instruction fees alone; the Taxing Officer granted Kshs. 150,000 on that item, with the overall Bill taxed at Kshs. 468,005. The Court took a cursory view that this was neither excessive nor inadequate, but deferred to the parties' shared position and directed settlement or re-taxation.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where both parties concur that taxation was attended by errors of principle, the Court has no reason to decline to allow the reference and set aside the taxing officer's ruling
  • Advocates and their clients should first seek to settle Bills of Costs by consultation rather than repeatedly resorting to the Court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Application filed by the Advocate dated 6th August 2024 is allowed and the Ruling of the Taxing Officer dated 9th July 2024 set aside with the consent of the Parties as expressed in their Submissions on record
  2. 2.The Advocates are directed to constructively engage, consult, and agree on the Bill of Costs
  3. 3.In the event they do not agree, the Bill of Costs shall be re-taxed before another Taxing Officer
  4. 4.No order on the costs
On appeal from
Taxing Officer, Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nakuru
Advocate-Client Bill of Costs in E&LRC Cause No. 61 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
Reference against a Taxing Officer's Ruling under the Advocates Act taxation regime (provision not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kemboy Law Advocates v Narok County Government (Miscellaneous Application E035 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 986 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Miscellaneous Application (Reference) arising from E&LRC Cause No. 61 of 2018; related to Miscellaneous Application No. E030 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/986/eng@2025-03-28

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