Kipteng v Good Hope Sacco Limited (Miscellaneous Application E038 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 128 (KLR) (28 January 2025) (Ruling)
- Court
- Employment & Labour Relations Court
- Case number
- 128
- Citation
- [2025] KEELRC 128 (KLR)
- Decided
- 28 January 2025
Summary at a glance
TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureRespondent's appeal from Kilgoris PM's Court Employment Cause Number 2 of 2019CoramJAMES RIKA
The application is partly allowed. The file at Kilgoris PM's Employment Cause Number E002 of 2019 shall be reopened. The applicant may file her Bill of Costs afresh, complying with all the procedures over which her previous Bill of Costs was rejected. The fresh Bill of Costs will be taxed by any other Magistrate with the requisite jurisdiction, other than Hon. Waswa.
Facts
The applicant was a successful claimant in Kilgoris PM's Court Employment Cause Number 2 of 2019. The respondent filed a Bill of Costs related to two applications, dated 23rd December 2021 and 8th February 2022. The Hon. W.C. Waswa ruled that the Bill of Costs was not properly claimed and closed the file.
Issues
- To set aside the Hon. W.C. Waswa's ruling regarding the Bill of Costs
- To place the Bill of Costs before another Magistrate for taxation
- To grant an order for interest on taxed costs at 14% per annum
Reasoning
The court finds that the Hon. Waswa's ruling was incorrect as there was a proper claim for assessment of costs before him. The orders granting costs should not have been dismissed.
Outcome
Partially allowed
Orders
- The file at Kilgoris PM's Employment Cause Number E002 of 2019 shall be reopened
- The applicant may file her Bill of Costs afresh, complying with all the procedures over which her previous Bill of Costs was rejected
- The fresh Bill of Costs will be taxed by any other Magistrate with the requisite jurisdiction, other than Hon. Waswa
Remedies
- Reopening of the file at Kilgoris PM's Employment Cause Number E002 of 2019
- Re-filing of the Bill of Costs by the applicant
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Loading judgment…