Mbugua v Kenya Airports Authority (Cause 805 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 3015 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ordered a fresh taxation of costs before a different taxing officer because the original officer never gave reasons for her decision.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Grounds of Opposition are merited
- 2.Whether the Claimant/Applicant's Reference Application is merited
- 3.Whether the reference was filed out of time and is therefore incompetent
Key legal issues
#Timeliness of the objection and reference under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
The applicant's objection letter dated 23rd May 2025 (received 28th May 2025) was lodged within the required time, and the absence of any response from the Deputy Registrar justified the filing of the reference
The court noted the objection was made on 28th May 2025, within the required time, despite the respondent's claim that the reference was filed out of time. The court found no indication that the Deputy Registrar ever responded to the request for reasons, which the court treated as explaining and legitimating the course the applicant took.
Whether the taxation was properly conducted
Given the objection raised by the applicant and the failure to give reasons, the taxation was to be conducted afresh by a different taxing master
The applicant contested that the taxing mistress erred in law in taxing the party and party bill of costs because reasons for the decision were not given. The court accepted that, in light of the objection and the lack of reasons from the Deputy Registrar, the appropriate remedy was remittal for fresh taxation before a taxing officer other than Hon Aziza.
Legal principles established
#- An aggrieved party may, within 14 days of the taxing officer's decision, write to the Taxing Officer citing the items objected to; the word 'may' confers a discretion whether to lodge such an objection within the specified timeline
- Where a taxing officer fails to respond to an objection seeking reasons for the taxation decision, and the objection was lodged within time, the court may remit the taxation for fresh taxation before a different taxing officer
Court orders
#- 1.The taxation of the Party and Party Bill of Costs is remitted back to be taxed by a different taxing master/mistress other than Hon Aziza
- 2.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference against a taxing officer's decision under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order (court's supervisory jurisdiction over taxation)
Relief refused
#Review and/or setting aside of the Taxing Officer's decision of 23rd May 2025 certifying costs at Kshs. 567,364.18 as sought in terms
The court did not set aside the decision itself but instead remitted the taxation to a different taxing master
Costs
Costs in the cause
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
There is no indication that the Deputy Registrar responded to the inquiry to provide reasons for her decision.
Despite the respondent indicating that the request was made late, from the pleadings, his was made on 28/5/25 and which was within the required time.
given the objection raised by the applicant, I would remit this taxation back to be taxed by a difierent taxing master/mistress other than Hon Aziza. Costs in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The court found the objection letter (dated 23rd May 2025, received 28th May 2025) was filed within time, but did not address the respondent's argument that the reference application itself, filed on 16th June 2025, was outside the 14-day period after the 23rd May 2025 ruling
The chamber summons is dated 16th March 2025 yet it seeks review of a ruling delivered on 23rd May 2025, and the judgment elsewhere states the application was filed on 16th June 2025
Typographical errors in the judgment ('difierent', 'Oficer', 'taxing mistress'/'taxing master' used interchangeably)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mbugua v Kenya Airports Authority (Cause 805 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 3015 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 16th March 2025 (Employment and Labour Relations Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3015/eng@2025-10-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.