Nderitu & Waturu Associates Advocates v Peter Kagunyu Kiragu [2021] KEELC 1941 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a challenge to a taxed advocates' bill because the objection was filed late with no extension of time sought.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Compliance with Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order timelines
The Notice of Objection filed on 8th October 2019 and the application filed on 17th September 2020 were both out of time, and no extension of time was sought, rendering them null and void
The taxing officer's ruling of 19th September 2019 contained reasons, so Rule 11(1) notice was unnecessary; the operative step was an application to the High Court within 14 days under Rule 11(2). The objector filed the notice 19 days after the ruling and the application over a year later. No application under Rule 11(4) to enlarge time was made, even after the point was raised, so the application could not succeed.
Necessity of a Notice of Objection where reasons were already given
Since the Taxing Master gave reasons for her decision in the ruling, a notice of objection seeking reasons was unnecessary; the requirement under Rule 11(1) did not arise
Following Samwel Chelule Koech v Kenya Forest Service, where the taxing master's ruling itself contains the reasons, the objector need not give notice in writing to obtain reasons, and omission of the notice is not fatal. The decisive timeline is the 14 days within which to apply to the High Court under Rule 11(2).
Legal principles established
#- Where the Taxing Master has already given reasons for the decision on taxed items, a notice of objection seeking reasons under Rule 11(1) is unnecessary, and the objector must move to the High Court within 14 days under Rule 11(2)
- Failure to adhere to the 14-day timelines in Rule 11, and failure to seek extension of time, renders the objection and the reference null and void
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 17th September 2020 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the Application to the Applicant/Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nderitu & Waturu Associates Advocates v Peter Kagunyu Kiragu [2021] KEELC 1941 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Notice of Motion dated 17th September 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1941/eng@2021-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.