Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedChamber Summons dated 23rd April 2019 and Chamber Summons dated 9th May 2019 (not otherwise numbered in the judgment)· [2019] KEELC 2663 (KLR)

Summer Meadows Limited v Kembi Gitura & another [2019] KEELC 2663 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya at Murang'a
4 July 2019
JKJ. G. Kemei
1,895 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court confirmed you can still challenge a taxed legal bill after 14 days if you were never notified of the ruling.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Two chamber summonses came before the High Court at Murang'a: one dated 23rd April 2019 by the Client, Summer Meadows Limited, under Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking enlargement of time to file a reference against the Deputy Registrar's taxation of an advocate/client bill (Kshs. 2,763,000 out of a claimed Kshs. 6,139,500), a stay of execution of the certificate of taxation, and its setting aside; and one dated 9th May 2019 by the Advocate, Nicola Farms Limited, under the Advocates Remuneration Order seeking similar enlargement of time. Both parties conceded that the notice of the ruling delivered on 27th February 2019 was never served on the Applicant, who learned of it only on perusal of the court file and by the Respondent's letter. The Applicant also complained that no typed ruling with reasons had been supplied despite requests. The Court held that it has discretion under paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order to enlarge time for filing a reference even after expiry of the 14-day period, provided it considers the circumstances causing the delay. Based on the parties' consent, it found sufficient reason to enlarge time. It further held taxation to be part of the execution process and, the Respondent not opposing, granted a limited-period stay of the certificate of taxation upon terms. Both applications were allowed, with each party bearing their own costs of their respective applications.

Key legal issues

#
01

Extension of time to file a reference against a taxing master's decision

Holding

The Court has discretion to enlarge time notwithstanding expiry of the 14-day period, and on the parties' concession that the ruling notice was not served, sufficient reason existed to grant the enlargement.

Reasoning

Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order empowers the High Court to enlarge time fixed by subparagraphs (1) and (2) even after expiry. Both parties conceded the Applicant was not notified of the ruling date as notices were not served, so the Applicant lacked capacity to file the reference within the statutory two-week period. On that consent, sufficient reason was shown for the exercise of discretion.

p. 3
02

Stay of execution of the certificate of taxation pending reference

Holding

Stay of execution was granted upon terms because taxation is part of the execution process and the Respondent did not oppose the application.

Reasoning

The Applicant sought stay of execution of the certificate of taxation pending the reference. The Court observed that taxation of costs is part of the execution process, noted the application was unopposed, and in the interests of justice granted a limited-period stay on terms to enable the Applicant to comply with paragraph 11 and file an appropriate application.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The High Court has discretion under paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order to extend time for lodging a reference after expiry of the 14-day period, and should consider the circumstances causing the delay.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Both applications allowed
  2. 2.Time enlarged within which to file a reference against the decision of the Taxing Officer made on 27th February 2019
  3. 3.Stay of execution of the certificate of taxation of costs granted upon terms, for a limited period to enable compliance with paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
  4. 4.Each party to bear their own costs of their respective applications

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderParagraph 11(1), (2), (3) and (4)
  • Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) Order, 2014Paragraph 18(f) and Schedule 5
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderSection 11(2) and (4) (as cited in the Respondent's Chamber Summons)
Jurisdiction invoked
Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Summer Meadows Limited v Kembi Gitura & another [2019] KEELC 2663 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Chamber Summons dated 23rd April 2019 and Chamber Summons dated 9th May 2019 (not otherwise numbered in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/2663/eng@2019-07-04

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.