Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedReference dated 3rd March 2025 (arising from ELRC Cause No. 656 of 2019)· [2025] KEELRC 2435 (KLR)

Chaudri & Associates Advocates v Robert Bosch East Africa Limited (Miscellaneous Application E363 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2435 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
15 September 2025
BMB. O. M. Manani
1,245 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

#

A Kenyan court confirmed that once judgment fixes the real value of a case, legal fees must be based on that amount, not inflated pleaded claims.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a reference under rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order challenging a Taxing Master's ruling of 27th February 2025, in which an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 11th December 2024 was assessed at Ksh. 3,971,195.04. The Bill arose from an employment cause (ELRC Cause No. 656 of 2019) in which an employee had claimed Ksh. 79,644,600.96 but was awarded Ksh. 829,631.26 plus costs and interest for unfair termination. The Taxing Master assessed instruction and getting up fees based on the pleaded figure rather than the judgment award. The Applicant argued this was an error of principle; the Respondent opposed, contending the reference was incompetent for failure to first request reasons from the Taxing Master, and that reliance on the pleaded sum was proper. The court held that where a taxation ruling contains the reasons for its decision, the requirement to file an objection and call for reasons beforehand is not mandatory, so the reference was competent. On the merits, applying Court of Appeal authority, once judgment has been entered the judgment - not the pleadings - determines the value of the subject matter. The Taxing Master therefore committed an error of principle. The taxation order of 27th February 2025 was set aside, the Bill of Costs was ordered remitted to another Taxing Master for fresh taxation with the court's observations in mind, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the reference. Judgment was delivered online on 15th September 2025 by B. O. M. Manani, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competence of the reference without prior objection and request for reasons

Holding

The reference was properly filed because the Taxing Master's ruling contained the reasons for the decision.

Reasoning

Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order ordinarily requires an objection and a request for reasons before filing a reference. However, courts have held this requirement not mandatory where the ruling itself sets out the reasons. Since the Taxing Master's ruling in this dispute contained the reasons for the decision, the Applicant was not obliged to file an objection first, and the Respondent's competency objection failed.

p. 2
02

Correct basis for assessing the value of the subject matter in taxing instruction and getting up fees

Holding

The Taxing Master erred in principle by using the pleaded claim of Ksh. 79,644,600.96 instead of the judgment award of Ksh. 829,631.26; the taxation order was set aside and the Bill remitted for fresh taxation before another Taxing Master.

Reasoning

Following Peter Muthoka v Ochieng, the value of the subject matter for instruction fees depends on the stage of taxation: pleadings before judgment, judgment once entered. Judgment in the primary suit awarded Ksh. 829,631.26, which conclusively set the claim's true value. The Taxing Master's reliance on the pleaded sum of Ksh. 79,644,600.96 was therefore an error of principle warranting setting aside and remittal.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The requirement to file an objection and call for reasons before filing a reference under rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order is not mandatory where the taxation ruling itself contains the reasons for the decision.
  • Where judgment has been pronounced, the value of the subject matter for taxation is determined by the judgment, not the pleadings.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The taxation order issued on 27th February 2025 is set aside
  2. 2.The Bill of Costs dated 11th December 2024 to be placed before another Taxing Master of the court for fresh taxation
  3. 3.The Taxing Master to take into account the observations made in this ruling whilst re-taxing the Bill of Costs
  4. 4.Each party to bear own costs of the reference
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order - reference against a Taxing Master's decision

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chaudri & Associates Advocates v Robert Bosch East Africa Limited (Miscellaneous Application E363 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2435 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Reference dated 3rd March 2025 (arising from ELRC Cause No. 656 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2435/eng@2025-09-15

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