Lempesai v Rioba & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E020 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 512 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court gave a self-represented litigant more time to challenge a costs ruling after he missed deadlines without a lawyer.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the application was filed inordinately late
Delay of less than two months by a self-acting litigant was not inordinate and no prejudice was shown
The taxing ruling was delivered on 3rd May 2023 and the application filed on 29th June 2023, under two months. The Applicant had filed a notice to act in person on 3rd June 2022, so he was unrepresented when the ruling was delivered. The court found no evidence of prejudice to the Respondent and, guided by the Salat principles on extension of time, declined to treat the delay as inordinate.
Whether the orders of 15th June 2022 granting costs on withdrawal of the suit, and the Notice to Show Cause of 11th May 2023, should be set aside
The Notice to Show Cause was vacated and the costs order of 15th June 2022 set aside because the orders were made in the Applicant's absence without a fair hearing
The Applicant was unrepresented and absent when the withdrawal notice was allowed with costs despite the notice stating there would be no orders as to costs. Invoking Article 50 fair-hearing guarantees, the court exercised leniency and vacated the Notice to Show Cause, there being gaps in evidence of service of the decree or the Applicant's awareness of the orders.
Whether the Applicant should be granted an opportunity to contest the taxed bill of costs
Time was extended to file a reference against the taxation decision, it being in the interest of justice since the Applicant was not present at the virtual taxation
Applying paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, which permits the court to enlarge time for filing an objection to a taxing officer's decision, the court found the Applicant may not have been present when the bill was taxed and that justice required giving him an opportunity to contest it. The parties' relationship was that of vendor and purchaser.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable, discretionary remedy; a party must lay a basis for it, explain the delay and show absence of prejudice
- A court may exercise leniency towards an unrepresented litigant in the spirit of the right to a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the Ruling and orders of Honourable J. Kamau issued on 3rd May 2023 and the Notice to Show Cause dated 11th May 2023 pending the hearing of the reference
- 2.The Order of 15th June 2022 granting costs to the 1st Respondent is set aside
- 3.The Applicant is granted 45 days to file a reference against the decision of the taxing officer dated 3rd May 2023
- 4.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the reference
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, read with Article 50 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lempesai v Rioba & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E020 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 512 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/512/eng@2024-02-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.