SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Uzuri Foods Limited v Mutisya (Miscellaneous Reference Application E151 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 592 (KLR) (2 March 2023) (Ruling)

[2023] KEELRC 592 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
592
Citation
[2023] KEELRC 592 (KLR)
Decided
2 March 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMiscellaneous Reference ApplicationPostureRespondent objected to the competence of the reference on grounds of lack of formal objection against the ruling of the Taxing Master.CoramBOM MANANI
Holding

The reference is competent and the court declines to terminate the proceedings on the ground that the Applicant did not first file a notice of objection under rule 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order.

Facts

The Applicant, Uzuri Foods Limited, is aggrieved by the ruling of the Taxing Master on a Bill of Costs dated 5th May 2022 arising from ELRC No. 1427 of 2016. The Respondent, Benjamin Kioko Mutisya, opposed the reference.

Issues

  1. Competence of the reference
  2. Procedural requirements for challenging a Taxing Master's decision

Reasoning

The court finds that the Taxing Master's ruling provides sufficient reasons for the decision, and declines to terminate the proceedings based on the procedural requirement of filing an objection with the Taxing Master.

Outcome

The reference is not dismissed.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Advocates Remuneration Order (ARO)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) Rules
Cases cited (3)
  • Evans Thiga Gaturu, Advocate v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
  • Kipkorir, Tito & Kiara Advocates v Deposit Protection Fund Board
  • Rogan-Kamper v Lord Grosvenor (No 3)
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case