Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC JR E003 of 2021· [2024] KEELC 4386 (KLR)

Republic v Land Adjudication Officer, Bondo, Siaya and Busia & 2 others; Lawi & another (Exparte Applicants); Gilo (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous.(Reference) Application 1 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 4386 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 May 2024
2,477 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Siaya dismissed an attempt to challenge a taxed legal costs bill because the objection was filed six days late with no explanation for the delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on a chamber summons dated 2/11/2023 by the ex parte applicants seeking enlargement of time and leave to file a reference against the ruling of the taxing master, Hon. Lester Simiyu, delivered on 4/10/2023 in the interested party's bill of costs, plus a stay of execution, setting aside of the ruling, and re-taxation. The applicants argued the bill was manifestly high, taxed on the wrong scale, and that the taxing master erred in principle and was biased. The interested party opposed, contending the applicants' notice of objection under Paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order was filed six days late and failed to disclose the items objected to, and that no plausible reasons for the delay had been given, relying on the Salat decision that extension of time is discretionary, not a right. The court framed four issues: extension of time, stay of execution, disturbance of the taxing decision, and orders. It held that under Paragraph 11(1) the objection had to be lodged within fourteen days of the decision, and the applicants' notice was six days out of time. Although Paragraph 11(4) confers discretion to enlarge time even after expiry, applying the principles in the NGO Coordination Board decision, the applicants advanced no reasons for the delay and bore the burden of explaining it. The court found no basis for extension, rendering the remaining issues unnecessary, and dismissed the summons with costs to the interested party on 30 May 2024.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether time to object to a taxing officer's decision runs from the decision or from receipt of reasons, and whether extension of time should be granted

Holding

The obligation to object within 14 days runs from the taxing officer's decision under Paragraph 11(1); the applicants' objection was 6 days late with no reasons advanced, so extension of time was refused

Reasoning

The court held counsel overlooked Paragraph 11(1), which requires objection within fourteen days of the decision. The notice of objection was filed six days out of time and did not disclose the items objected to. Although Paragraph 11(4) confers discretion to enlarge time, the applicants advanced no reason for the delay and laboured under the mistaken belief that extension was a matter of right. Applying the NGO Coordination Board and Leo Sila Mutiso principles, the court found the burden of explaining the delay undischarged and declined to enlarge time, rendering the remaining issues moot.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time under Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order is a discretionary equitable remedy requiring the applicant to lay a satisfactory basis and explain the delay; an objection under Paragraph 11(1) must be lodged within 14 days of the taxing officer's decision

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The chamber summons dated 2/11/2023 is dismissed with costs to the interested party
On appeal from
Taxing Master (ruling of Hon. Lester Simiyu)
ELC JR E003 of 2021
Jurisdiction invoked
Paragraphs 11(2) and 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Land Adjudication Officer, Bondo, Siaya and Busia & 2 others; Lawi & another (Exparte Applicants); Gilo (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous.(Reference) Application 1 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 4386 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELC JR E003 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4386/eng@2024-05-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.