Karingo v Attorney-General & another; Ngunu & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Case 1404 of 2004) [2024] KEELC 6653 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out a challenge to a Kshs. 6.9 million taxation because the applicant skipped the mandatory Notice of Objection step.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether new prayers raised only in submissions (abatement, nullity of certificate, prohibition) could be granted
No - parties are bound by their pleadings and the court can only determine issues contained in the application
The Applicant introduced orders in submissions that were never sought in the Chamber Summons, including abatement and nullity of the certificate. Relying on Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi v Mwangi Stephen Muriithi and Nancy Wambui Gatheru, the court held submissions are not pleadings or evidence. Further, under Order 24 rule 10, substitution of a deceased party at execution stage is not mandatory (Mueni Kiamba).
Whether the Applicant was condemned unheard in the taxation proceedings
No - his advocates of record were duly served; he never effected a change of representation under Order 9 Rule 9
Gitobu Imanyara Advocates remained on record; the Applicant never sought leave to change advocates or filed a notice of intention to act in person after judgment. Service on the firm was therefore proper. A litigant has a duty to follow up on his case; any negligence by counsel is a separate cause of action against the advocate.
Whether the Certificate of Taxation should be set aside
No - the Reference was incompetent for want of a Notice of Objection under Paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Rule 11 requires a notice in writing of the items objected to before a reference is brought. This requirement, though not in mandatory terms, is necessary and sets in motion the court's jurisdiction; Article 159(2)(d) does not excuse such non-compliance. No notice or explanation was on record, so the Reference was a non-starter and its merits were not considered.
Legal principles established
#- The Notice of Objection under Rule 11(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order is a mandatory/necessary step that sets in motion the court's jurisdiction to hear a reference against a taxation decision
- Submissions do not constitute pleadings or evidence and cannot found relief not sought in the application
- A party who has not complied with Order 9 Rule 9 cannot fault service on counsel of record; failure by an advocate to respond is a matter for a separate forum
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons dated March 26, 2024 is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Interested Parties/Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order - reference to a Judge from the decision of a Taxing Officer
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karingo v Attorney-General & another; Ngunu & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Case 1404 of 2004) [2024] KEELC 6653 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Chamber Summons dated 26th March, 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6653/eng@2024-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.