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 AllowedELC Miscellaneous Application No. 74 of 2016· [2022] KEELC 1545 (KLR)

Murimi and Company Adocates v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited [2022] KEELC 1545 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
10 February 2022
SOS. Okong'o
2,465 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court extended time to challenge an advocate's taxed bill, but only if a Notice of Objection is filed identifying exactly which costs are disputed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent advocate filed an Advocate/Client Bill of Costs in 2014 in respect of services rendered to the Applicant in HCCC No. 2577 of 1990, a land dispute transferred to the Environment and Land Court. After several mentions held without appearance by either party, the Senior Deputy Registrar (Hon. I.N. Barasa) delivered a taxation ruling on 11th July 2019 taxing the Bill at Kshs. 2,312,597.36, including instruction fees of Kshs. 1,000,000/-. The Applicant filed a Chamber Summons dated 9th April 2021 seeking extension of time to file a reference against that ruling, deeming of the reference as properly filed, setting aside of the taxation, and re-taxation or remission of the Bill. The Applicant contended it was unaware of the ruling until July 2020, that the ruling was not supplied until March 2021, that the taxing officer made errors of principle including failure to specify the applicable Remuneration Order and reliance on a contested decree later varied from Kshs. 65,219,127.48 to Kshs. 27,943,111.63, and failure to account for part payment of Kshs. 846,358. The application was unopposed. The court granted extension of time, finding the delay uncontroverted, but declined to deem the reference properly filed because no Notice of Objection had been filed identifying the contested items in the 181-item Bill. It ordered the filing of both the Notice of Objection and reference within 21 days, stayed execution of the taxation ruling pending the reference (the stay lapsing automatically if the reference is not filed in time), and made costs of the application costs in the cause. The court expressly refrained from pronouncing on the merits of the taxation ruling.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether extension of time for filing a reference under paragraph 11(4) of the ARO should be granted

Holding

Extension granted because the Applicant's explanations for the delay were uncontroverted and the application was unopposed

Reasoning

The court found the Applicant's reasons for the delay - non-service of taxation notices due to its advocates' relocation, the ruling not being supplied until March 2021 despite payment in July 2020, and the Respondent's expressed intention to withdraw the Bill - were not controverted. Paragraph 11(4) permits enlargement of time even after expiry. The application being unopposed, the court was satisfied the prayer was merited.

p. 3
02

Whether a reference could proceed without a Notice of Objection

Holding

No; the reference could not be deemed properly filed because no Notice of Objection identified the contested items

Reasoning

Paragraph 11(1) of the ARO requires an objector to give notice in writing of the items of taxation objected to. With a Bill of 181 items, of which the Applicant conceded some and contested others, the court could not identify the contested items absent a Notice of Objection and would have to proceed on assumptions. The proper course was to extend time to file both the Notice of Objection and the reference together.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An objector to taxation must file a Notice of Objection setting out the items objected to under paragraph 11(1) of the ARO, and the court should not deem a reference properly filed in the absence of such a notice
  • A taxing officer must indicate which Advocates Remuneration Order was applied and how the basic instruction fees was arrived at

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Time within which the Applicant was to file a Notice of Objection to the ruling on taxation delivered on 11th July 2019 extended by 21 days from the date of the order
  2. 2.The Applicant to file the Notice of Objection and the reference to the ruling of 11th July 2019 together within 21 days from the date of the order
  3. 3.Pending hearing and determination of the reference, execution of the ruling and orders made by the taxing officer Hon. I.N. Barasa SDR on 11th July 2019 is stayed
  4. 4.The stay order shall lapse automatically if the reference is not filed within 21 days
  5. 5.Cost of the application shall be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 25(c), 50, 159
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderParagraph 11(1), 11(2), 11(4)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
Jurisdiction invoked
Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2009; Articles 25(c), 50 and 159 of the Constitution; Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Murimi and Company Adocates v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited [2022] KEELC 1545 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). ELC Miscellaneous Application No. 74 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/1545/eng@2022-02-10

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