AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutChamber Summons application dated April 13, 2022 (filed June 14, 2022)· [2023] KEELC 246 (KLR)
Kunjuga v Kangaru (Miscellaneous Application E011 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 246 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#The defendant/applicant, Patrick Maguta Kimemia, moved the court by chamber summons dated April 13, 2022 seeking to vacate and set aside the ruling of Deputy Registrar S.K. Nyaga of March 28, 2022, by which his Bill of Costs dated February 4, 2022 seeking Kshs. 181,365/= was taxed off and only Kshs. 1,300/= awarded. He sought a fresh taxation before a different taxing master, or alternatively taxation by the court itself, contending the taxing master misdirected herself by taxing off items 1, 2, 4-8 and 10-11 and that the award was manifestly low. The plaintiff/respondent opposed, arguing the application was incompetent, having been filed 77 days beyond the statutory period, and that the underlying suit was withdrawn due to duplication of files. The court framed a single prior question: whether the reference could be sustained. Applying Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, and following Muriu Mungai & Co. Advocates v New Kenya Cooperative Creameries, Mirugi Kariuki & Co Advocates v Andrew Isoe Ochoki and Mario Rossi v Salama Beach Hotel Limited, the court held that although the taxing master's ruling contained reasons on its face (making a request for reasons unnecessary), the applicant was still bound to file within 14 days or seek extension of time under paragraph 11(4). He did neither, and gave no reasons for the delay. The reference and the entire chamber summons application were struck out with costs to the plaintiff/respondent.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether the Reference filed out of time without leave under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order can be sustained
Holding
The reference could not be sustained and was struck out
Reasoning
Rule 11 requires notice of objection within 14 days and filing of the reference within 14 days of receipt of reasons. The taxing master's ruling contained reasons on its face, so no request for reasons was needed, but the applicant was still bound to file within 14 days or seek extension of time under paragraph 11(4). He filed 77 days later with no reasons for the delay and no leave, rendering the reference incompetent.
p. 4
Legal principles established
#- Where the taxing master's ruling contains reasons on its face, there is no need to seek further reasons, but a reference must still be filed within 14 days or leave obtained under Rule 11(4); a reference filed out of time without leave cannot be sustained
- Timelines fixed by statute or subsidiary legislation must be strictly complied with
Court orders
#- 1.The reference and/or chamber summons application dated April 13, 2022 is struck out entirely
- 2.Costs of the application to the plaintiff/respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order - power of the High Court to enlarge time; reference against decision of a taxing master
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kunjuga v Kangaru (Miscellaneous Application E011 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 246 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Chamber Summons application dated April 13, 2022 (filed June 14, 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/246/eng@2023-01-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.