Obiero t/a C Obiero & Associate Advocates v Migori County Assembly Service Board & another (Miscellaneous Application E005 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2463 (KLR) (21 September 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 2463 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT KISUMU MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION E005 OF 2026 NZIOKI WA MAKAU, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2026 BETWEEN CLIFFORD OTIENO OBIERO T/A C OBIERO & ASSOCIATE ADVOCATES ............................................................................................. APPLICANT AND MIGORI COUNTY ASSEMBLY SERVICE BOARD .................. 1ST RESPONDENT COUNTY ASSEMBLY OF MIGORI ............................................ 2ND RESPONDENT RULING 1. Vide an application dated 4th June 2026, the Applicant seeks to have the Certicate of Taxation issued on 26th May 2026 converted into a judgment and decree of the Court, together 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. 479,682/- on 20th May 2026, following which a Certicate 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 adavit, both dated 28th July 2026. They contend that the application is premature, as they have led a Notice of Objection dated 2nd 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 them with reasons for the decision within 14 days of ling of the objection, to enable them lodge a reference. The Respondents therefore maintain that they have been hamstrung from pursuing a reference and urge the Court to dismiss the application with costs for being premature. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2463/eng@2026-09-21 1
page 1 of 2
4. By way of rejoinder, the Applicant led a further adavit sworn on 29th July 2026. It contends that the notice of objection was not properly led 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-ling 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 led court document and, consequently, there was no competent objection to the Certicate of Costs. It thus maintains that, pursuant to section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the Certicate 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 adavit, while the Respondents relied on the grounds of opposition and replying adavit. 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 le a Notice of Objection. This document can be assessed through the Judiciary e-ling system. The Applicant asserts that the Respondents did not make the requisite payment, as evinced by annexture “CO-5A” in the adavit 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 led court document and, consequently, there was no competent objection to the Certicate 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 rm view that merely posting a document on the Judiciary e-ling portal without requisite payment of court fees is merely pung. There is no validly led Notice of Objection to taxation. There being no objection to the bill of costs, pursuant to section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, the Certicate 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 led document. In 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 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2463/eng@2026-09-21 2
page 2 of 2