B.M. Mung’ata & Co. Advocates v Seke (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 6 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 1183 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court entered judgment for an advocate's Kshs 2.3 million taxed costs after the client failed to explain a 116-day delay in objecting to the taxation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether time should be enlarged to allow the Client to file an objection to the Taxing Officer's decision
Enlargement of time refused; the Client failed to discharge the burden of explaining the 116-day delay, produced no medical reports and did not state when he learned of the taxation outcome.
Applying the Supreme Court's principles in Fahim Yasin Twaha v Timamy Issa Abdalla, the court noted extension of time is discretionary and equitable, requiring a satisfactory explanation for the delay and absence of prejudice. The Client's advocate was present when the ruling was delivered, no medical evidence was annexed, and the application appeared filed only after the Advocate moved for judgment, making the delay inordinate and inexcusable.
Whether judgment should be entered for the Advocate for the taxed costs
Application allowed; under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act the Certificate of Taxation is final unless set aside, and judgment was entered for Kshs 2,298,963.50.
The court invoked section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, holding the court has inherent power to enter judgment on a taxed certificate where the retainer is not disputed and no reference is pending. Relying on Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v N.K. Brothers Limited, no further action is required of the court once costs are taxed and certified save to enter judgment.
Legal principles established
#- Once costs are taxed and a Certificate of Costs issued with no pending reference, the certificate should be entered as judgment under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act.
- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party, and the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered against the Respondent (Client) for Kshs 2,298,963.50 being the taxed and certified costs payable to the Applicant
- 2.Costs of the two Applications awarded to the Advocate
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (inherent powers); Rule 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "B.M. Mung’ata & Co. Advocates v Seke (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 6 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 1183 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/1183/eng@2024-03-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.