Kenya County Government Workers Union v County Government of Wajir & 4 others

3. The Respondents objected to the Bill of Costs on the ground that the consent between the parties neither provided for costs of the suit nor reserved the issue of costs for determination by the court. As such, it was their position that the Taxing Master was not entitled to assume jurisdiction over the impugned Bill of Costs. 4. The Taxing Master considered the objection and dismissed it. He subsequently proceeded to tax the impugned Bill of Costs. 5. Meanwhile, the Respondents led the instant application seeking, inter alia, the following orders:a. Spent. b. Spent. c. That the court issues an order declaring that there were no costs awarded to the Claimant in the consent judgment dated 10th November 2022 which was adopted by the court on 17th January 2023. d. That the court claries and interprets the consent judgment dated 10th November 2022 which was adopted by the court on 17th January 2023 with regard to the question of costs. e. That the court orders that no Bill of Costs lies and no taxation may be undertaken arising from the consent judgment aforesaid. f. That the court issues such other order as may be necessary for the ends of justice. g. That the court gives directions on costs of the application. 6. The application is premised on the grounds which appear on the face thereof and on the adavit of one Naema Ibrahim. The grounds are the same ones which were urged in the preliminary objection which the Taxing Master dismissed. 7. The Claimant has opposed the application. It has led a replying adavit dated 16th January 2026 to anchor its objection to the motion. 8. The Claimant admits that the parties entered into a consent judgment. However, it denies that the consent did not provide for costs. 9. The Claimant asserts that the position in law is that costs follow the event meaning that costs in a suit or other matter before court are deemed to be granted to the successful party. It contends that because it was the successful party in the suit, it was entitled to costs. 10. The Claimant further contends that the Respondents raised the issue regarding whether costs were payable in their preliminary objection before the Taxing Master but the objection was dismissed. As such, it contends that the matter is closed and not open to this court to consider through the instant application. 11. The Claimant contends that the impugned Bill of Costs has, in any event, been taxed. As such, it avers that the instant application has been overtaken by events. Analysis 12. The position in law is that once a Bill of Costs is led and placed before a Taxing Master, he assumes jurisdiction over all issues which may arise from it. As such, the parties thereto are not entitled (except https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2048/eng@2026-07-15 2

page 2 of 4

by consent under rule 12 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order) to le parallel proceedings before another court over the same matter. 13. In eect, no court has jurisdiction to conduct parallel proceedings with respect to issues which are pending determination before the Taxing Master. The only avenue through which another court (the High Court or Courts of Equal Status) may intervene in the proceedings is through a reference under rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. 14. The above position was expressed by the Court of Appeal in the case of C.B. Gor & Gor v Oriental Commercial Bank Limited (formerly known as Delphis Bank Limited) [2018] KECA 396 (KLR) when the learned Judges of the court stated as follows:Did the learned Judge have jurisdiction to entertain the application seeking to strike out the bills of costs? It is common ground that the taxing master is clothed with jurisdiction to tax either a party/party or an advocate/client bills of costs. In such proceedings, the High Court’s jurisdiction may be invoked by any party who is aggrieved with the decision of the taxing master on the taxation or any other matter therein by ling of a reference under paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The High Court’s jurisdiction can also be invoked under the provisions of paragraph 12 where the parties by consent have agreed that a matter arising from the taxation of a bill of costs be referred for the High Court’s opinion. ….the contention that the taxing master’s jurisdiction is limited to only taxing bills of costs hence he/she could not handle an application challenging the competency of the bills in question does not hold water…..paying regard to paragraph 13A of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order which stipulates: “ For the purpose of any proceeding before him, the taxing ocer shall have power and authority to summon and examine witnesses, to administer oaths, to direct the production of books, paper and documents and to direct and adopt all such other proceedings as may be necessary for the determination of any matter in dispute before him.” The above provision surely must mean that a taxing master who is charged with the duty of taxing bills of costs must also have the power to determine an objection as to the competency of the bill.’’ 15. In the case before me, the court notes that after the Claimant led the impugned Bill of Costs, the Respondents led a preliminary objection to the Taxing Master’s jurisdiction to entertain the taxation on the ground that the consent judgment did not have provision for costs. The court further notes that the Taxing Master dismissed the preliminary objection where-after the Respondent led the instant application in the parent le seeking to raise the same issues. 16. In the court’s view, once the question regarding the Taxing Master’s jurisdiction to tax the Bill of Costs on account of absence of a provision for costs in the consent between the parties was taken up before and determined by the Taxing Master, the Respondents lost the opportunity to institute the instant parallel application to canvass the same issue. The only avenue open to them was to challenge the impugned ruling through a reference under rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. 17. The court notes that indeed the Respondents have led a reference raising the same matters raised in the instant application. That reference is pending resolution. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2048/eng@2026-07-15 3

page 3 of 4

18. In the court’s view and guided by the Court of Appeal decision in the case ofC.B. Gor & Gor v Oriental Commercial Bank Limited (formerly known as Delphis Bank Limited) (supra), the matters which are raised in this application ought to be pursued and resolved through the pending reference. As such, the instant application is superuous and is declined. 19. For the avoidance of doubt, this ruling does not impact on or determine any issue which has been raised in the reference between the parties over the same subject matter. Indeed, it is in that reference that the court will determine whether the Taxing Master committed an error of principle by taxing the impugned Bill of Costs on the assumption that the consent between the parties provided for costs of the suit. Determination 20. The upshot is that the instant application is declined. 21. The issues raised in the application ought to be pursued and will be resolved in the pending reference between the parties. 22. Each party shall bear own costs of the application. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ON THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 B. O. M. MANANI JUDGE In the presence of: …………….for the Claimant …………….for the Respondents Order In light of the directions issued on 12th July 2022 by her Ladyship, the Chief Justice with respect to online court proceedings, this decision has been delivered to the parties online with their consent, the parties having waived compliance with Rule 28 (3) of the ELRC Procedure Rules which requires that all judgments and rulings shall be dated, signed and delivered in the open court. B. O. M MANANI https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2048/eng@2026-07-15 4

page 4 of 4