Mugendi Karigi & Co Advocates v Doric Industries Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out a client's late challenge to a taxed legal bill because the client waited too long and gave no good reason for the delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court should enlarge time for filing the reference out of the 14-day period under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
The discretion to enlarge time exists but was not exercised because the client failed to offer a plausible and satisfactory explanation for the delay
The court applied the Supreme Court's extension-of-time principles in County Executive of Kisumu. The impugned ruling of July 4, 2022 already contained the reasons for taxation, so the client's request for further reasons was unnecessary. The client also filed the application despite not receiving the 'reasons' sought, showing they were unnecessary; the application was merely a reaction to the Advocate's application for entry of judgment.
Whether the failure to obtain reasons from the Taxing Master justified the delay in filing the reference
No - the reasons were already on the face of the ruling, and insufficiency of reasons is not a bar to filing a reference
Relying on Ahmednasir Abdikadir & Co. Advocates v National Bank of Kenya Ltd (2) and Evans Thiga Gaturu v Kenya Commercial Bank, the court held that where reasons appear on the face of the decision it is futile to expect the taxing officer to furnish further reasons, and any insufficiency may itself be the ground for the reference.
Legal principles established
#- Where the reasons for taxation on disputed items are already contained in the considered ruling, there is no need to seek further reasons before filing a reference
- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party, and the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay satisfactorily
Court orders
#- 1.The Client/Applicant's Chamber Summons dated September 23, 2022 is struck out with costs to the Advocate/Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order - High Court power to enlarge time fixed by subparagraphs (1) and (2)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mugendi Karigi & Co Advocates v Doric Industries Limited", Case Analysis (2023). Miscellaneous Application E057 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/15664/eng@2023-02-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.