Ogola & 46 others v Sandhu t/a Hotel Royale; Bank of Baroda (K) Ltd (Garnishee) (Cause E016 of 2013) [2025] KEELRC 2906 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court in Kisumu dismissed an attempt to tax further legal costs because no court order had ever awarded those costs in the first place.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether leave ought to be granted to the applicant to lodge and file a Further Bill of Costs
- 2.Whether the Deputy Registrar should be allowed to tax the Further Bill of Costs upon grant of leave
- 3.Whether the applicant should be allowed to charge interest on the Taxed Bill of Costs
- 4.Whether the application was res judicata, an abuse of court process, or barred by functus officio
Key legal issues
#Whether leave could issue for filing a Further Bill of Costs absent an order awarding costs
The application was dismissed; no costs order supported the Further Bill and the court could not make an award of costs through the backdoor
The court traced the litigation history, noting that the Further Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 23rd January, 2023 had been struck out by the Deputy Registrar for want of jurisdiction, and the court on 11th April 2024 declined to set that aside. The applicant could not identify any post-judgment application in which costs were awarded to them, and taxation must flow from an order of the court.
Whether the matter was res judicata or the court functus officio on costs
The court effectively treated the application as an attempt to overturn its ruling of 11th April 2024 while a related Bill of Costs was pending before the Court of Appeal
The court observed that the applicant had kept two files active in the High Court/ELRC and the Court of Appeal, and that the argument that the two Bills were different did not ameliorate the risk of conflicting orders. The matter pending before the Court of Appeal ought to be given preference.
Legal principles established
#- Taxation flows from an order of the court; there must first be an award of costs to support a Bill of Costs
- Costs are discretionary and are exercised judiciously depending on the circumstances of each case, notwithstanding the principle that costs follow the event
- Leave to file a Further Bill of Costs must be supported by demonstrable justification of the costs claimed
Court orders
#- 1.The applicants' Notice of Motion dated 10th May, 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 26, 27, 63 and 64 of the Civil Procedure Act; Rule 11(2) and 13 of the Advocates Remuneration Rules; Order 51 Rule 1 and 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Leave to lodge and file a Further Bill of Costs
No award of costs to the applicant supported the Further Bill; the Deputy Registrar had struck out the Bill for want of jurisdiction and the court declined to revive it
Taxation of the Further Bill of Costs and interest thereon
Follows from refusal of leave; costs are discretionary and the applicant failed to show any order awarding costs
Costs
The Notice of Motion dated 10th May, 2024 is dismissed with costs (to the respondent)
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.
It is trite law that taxation fiows from an Order of the court.
Whereas nothing prevents an advocate from filing Further or Supplementary Bill of Costs as and when circumstances render it necessary, an application to the court to grant an advocate leave to file a Further Bill of Costs ought to be supported by demonstrable justifications of the costs.
Consequently, the applicants' Notice of Motion dated 10th May, 2024 is dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment contains OCR/typographical errors (e.g. 'fiows' for 'flows', 'difierent' for 'different', 'funtus oficio' for 'functus officio')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ogola & 46 others v Sandhu t/a Hotel Royale; Bank of Baroda (K) Ltd (Garnishee) (Cause E016 of 2013) [2025] KEELRC 2906 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 10th May, 2024 (ELRC at Kisumu). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2906/eng@2025-10-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.