Clifford Otieno Obiero t/a C. Obiero & Associates Advocates v Migori County Assembly Service Board & Another

with interest at court rates until payment in full. It also seeks the costs of the application. 2. The Applicant contends that its Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 4th February 2026 was taxed at Kshs. 228,541/- on 20 th May 2026, following which a Certificate of Costs was issued on 26th May 2026, as evinced by annexture “COO-1”. It submits that the application ought to be allowed since the taxed costs have neither been challenged nor set aside. 3. The Respondents oppose the application through grounds of opposition and a replying affidavit, both dated 28 th July 2026. They contend that the application is premature, as they have filed a Notice of Objection dated 2 nd June 2026, which is yet to be responded to. Their contention is that, pursuant to Rule 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, No. 64 of 1962, the Court is required to furnish the objector with reasons for the decision within 14 days of filing of the Page 2 of 6

page 2 of 6

objection, to enable the Respondents to lodge a reference against the taxation. They therefore maintain that they have been hamstrung from pursuing a reference and urge the Court to dismiss the application with costs for being premature. 4. By way of rejoinder, the Applicant filed a further affidavit sworn on 29th July 2026. It contends that the notice of objection was not properly filed in line with Rule 10(2) and (5) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules and the Electronic Case Management Practice Directions 2020. In particular, it asserts that although the Notice of Objection was assessed through the Judiciary e-filing system, the Respondents did not make the requisite payment, as evinced by annexture “CO-5A”. The Applicant therefore contends that the Notice of Objection did not attain the status of a duly filed court document and, Page 3 of 6

page 3 of 6

consequently, there was no competent objection to the Certificate of Costs. It thus maintains that, pursuant to section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the Certificate of Costs remains valid and enforceable. 5. On 30th July 2026, the parties elected to canvass the application by way of the documents on record. Accordingly, the Applicant relied on the application and further affidavit, while the Respondents relied on the grounds of opposition and replying affidavit. Disposition 6. The determination herein hinges on the status of a document that is on the Judiciary portal. It is asserted by the Applicant that the Respondent purported to file a Notice of Objection. This document can be assessed through the Judiciary e-filing system. The Applicant asserts that the Respondents did not make the requisite payment, as evinced by annexture “CO- Page 4 of 6

page 4 of 6

5A” in the further affidavit in support of the contention there is no valid objection. The Applicant contends therefore, that the Notice of Objection did not attain the status of a duly filed court document and, consequently, there was no competent objection to the Certificate of Costs. 7. Having had regard to the status of the document before the Court as a “Notice of Objection”, the Court is of the firm view that merely posting a document on the Judiciary e-filing portal without requisite payment of court fees is merely puffing. There is no validly filed Notice of Objection to taxation. There being no objection to the bill of costs, pursuant to section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the Certificate of Costs the Applicant seeks to convert into a decree of this Court remains valid and enforceable. 8. Where costs are due, these must be paid in order to bring the document within the purview of a duly filed document. In Page 5 of 6

page 5 of 6

the premises the motion by the Applicant is for grant. It is allowed with costs to the Applicant. It is so ordered. Dated and delivered at Kisumu this 21st day of September 2026 Nzioki wa Makau, MCIArb. JUDGE Page 6 of 6

page 6 of 6