Yooshin Engineering Corporation v Aia Architects Limited
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal in Mombasa refused to excuse a 10-month unexplained delay in challenging a taxed legal bill, dismissing the application with costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in seeking a reference out of time should be excused
The delay of about 10 months from knowledge of the taxing decision (12th May 2023) to filing (6th March 2024) was inordinate and unexplained; leave refused and motion dismissed.
The court accepted that the applicant's advocates were only fully notified of the certificate of costs and ruling by the respondent's advocates' email of 12th May 2023, so delay up to then could be accounted for. However, the applicant gave no explanation for the further roughly 10 months before filing the motion on 6th March 2024. Applying the Fakir Mohamed factors, unexplained inordinate delay justified dismissal.
Service and knowledge of the taxation proceedings
Although the applicant claimed it was unaware of taxation, evidence showed its advocates were notified of the ruling date; only the forwarding of the certificate and ruling went solely to the respondent's advocates.
The court found the respondent's assertion that the applicant was copied in all emails not entirely true: the 27th April 2023 email forwarding the certificate of costs was addressed only to the respondent's advocates. However, the respondent's advocates' email of 12th May 2023 made the applicant aware, fixing the start of the unexplained delay.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time under Rule 4 is discretionary and guided by settled factors including length of and reason for delay, prejudice, and compliance with time limits
- A single judge cannot grant a stay of execution pending appeal; such applications must be heard by the full Court under Rule 5(2)(b)
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 6th March 2024 is dismissed with costs to the respondent
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal (ruling of the taxing officer, Hon. Adika)
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (extension of time), before a single judge
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Yooshin Engineering Corporation v Aia Architects Limited", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/855/eng@2025-03-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.