Maurice Carlos Ouma t/a Odhiambo Ouma & Company Advocates v Pauline Akwancha [2022] KEELC 2050 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kisumu refused to excuse a nine-month delay in challenging taxed legal costs, ruling that blaming your lawyer is no excuse if you never followed up.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether extension of time to object to taxation should be granted despite inordinate delay
The application for extension of time was refused because the delay of approximately nine months was inordinate, unexplained and the application was an afterthought brought during execution after the certificate of costs had been adopted as judgment
Order 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order requires objection to taxation within 14 days, with a discretionary power in the court to enlarge time. The court exercises that discretion judiciously, requiring reasons for delay, absence of prejudice and promptness. Here the respondent took about nine months, came to court during execution more than 20 days after the certificate was adopted as judgment, offered no letter of follow-up with the previous advocate, and could not rely on mistake of counsel.
Whether mistake of the previous advocate justified the failure to file a reference in time
Mistake of counsel was not accepted as an excuse because the respondent herself bore a duty to inquire into the outcome of taxation and adduced no evidence of any request to the advocate
The respondent blamed her previous advocate for failing to notify her of the taxation outcome. The court held that the duty to follow up rested also on the client; the absence of any letter to the advocate requesting the outcome led the court to disbelieve the claim of ignorance. Mistake of counsel therefore could not be visited as an excuse in the circumstances of this case.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party, granted judicially and upon satisfactory reasons for the delay
- A litigant cannot escape time limitations by blaming an advocate without showing personal diligence in following up the matter
Court orders
#- 1.The application is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order - power of the High Court to enlarge time fixed for objecting to taxation
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maurice Carlos Ouma t/a Odhiambo Ouma & Company Advocates v Pauline Akwancha [2022] KEELC 2050 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Kisumu ELC Miscellaneous Application (consolidated, arising from Misc. Application Nos. 30, 31 and 33 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2050/eng@2022-01-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.