Siror & another v Sugut & 12 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 7 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a bid to overturn a KSh 631,310 costs ruling because the objection was filed a day late, confirming strict 14-day deadlines.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Reference is properly before the Court
- 2.Whether the Applicants should be granted leave to file a Reference against the Ruling delivered on 13/12/2022
- 3.Whether stay of execution should be granted pending the determination of the Miscellaneous Reference Application
- 4.Whether the Ruling of 13/12/2022 in respect of items No. 1, 3rd, 4th to 11th and 13th should be set aside and taxed afresh
- 5.Who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether Order 50 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules extends the time for filing a notice of objection under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order
It does not. The Civil Procedure Rules are subsidiary legislation under Section 81 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Section 3 of the Act provides that its procedure does not limit any special jurisdiction or procedure prescribed under another law. The Advocates Remuneration Order is a complete code on taxation, so time under Rule 11(1) ran from 13/12/2022 to 27/12/2022 and the objection filed 28/12/2022 was out of time.
The court reasoned that the Civil Procedure Act prevails over the Rules in a hierarchy of laws, but that Section 3 of the Act itself disapplies the Act and Rules where a special procedure exists under another law. Authorities including Hezekiel Oira, Machira & Company Advocate v Magugu, George Miyare and Mutanga Tea establish the Advocates Act and Remuneration Order as a complete code on taxation of costs. Hence the recess omission of time in Order 50 Rule 4 is confined to acts under the Civil Procedure Rules and cannot save the Applicants' late objection.
Whether the reference and the prayer for leave to file a reference could stand together
They could not. A party cannot file a reference and simultaneously seek leave to file it; where leave is a precondition, a document filed without it is a nullity, following Salat v IEBC.
The court found the two prayers self-contradictory and invoked the Supreme Court's decision in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC to hold that filing before obtaining required leave renders the document a nullity. Since the Applicants neither filed a timely objection nor sought extension of time under Rule 11(4), and no reasons for taxation had been given, the reference had no foundation and leave to file it was refused.
Legal principles established
#- Order 50 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules (the Christmas recess freeze on computation of time) does not apply to the timelines prescribed in Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, because where a special statute or subsidiary legislation prescribes a procedure, the Civil Procedure Act and Rules thereunder do not apply
- A document filed without leave of the court where leave is a condition precedent is a nullity
Court orders
#- 1.The entire application is dismissed with costs to the Respondents
- 2.The file is closed, subject to payment of the costs of the Application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 1A, 1B and 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 50 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Relief refused
#Leave to file a miscellaneous reference against the Deputy Registrar's Ruling of 13/12/2022
No notice of objection was filed within the 14 days prescribed by Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order; Order 50 Rule 4 CPR does not apply; and reasons for the taxation have not been sought or given, so the time to file a reference has not commenced
Setting aside and taxation afresh of item 1 and other items of the Deputy Registrar's Ruling
The prayer was premature and incompetent as leave to file a reference had not been granted and the reference was not properly before the court
Stay of execution of the taxed costs pending the hearing and determination of the reference
There is no valid reference pending and the objection was improperly on record; the application was also filed with inordinate delay
Costs
The entire application failed and was dismissed with costs to the Respondents who opposed it; the file is closed subject to payment of the costs of the Application.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
To file an appeal out of time and seek the court to extend time is presumptive and inappropriate. No appeal can be filed out of time without leave of the court.
Where there is a law prescribed by either a constitution or an Act of Parliament governing a procedure for the redress of any particular grievance, that procedure should be strictly followed.
The Advocates Act, in my most considered view, is a complete statute in itself on matters of taxation of costs and as such, a party cannot invoke the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act or Rules made there under for purposes of challenging any decision of the taxing oficer
The upshot is that the entire application fails. It is dismissed with costs to the Respondents who opposed it. The file is closed, subject to payment of the costs of the Application herein.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment records the Respondents' issue as concerning a letter dated 28/12/2023 while the applicants' letter is elsewhere dated 28/12/2022
The Bill of Costs is inconsistently dated 7th July 2020 in the prayers and 07/07/2022 in the submissions
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Siror & another v Sugut & 12 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 7 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Miscellaneous Application dated 09/10/2023 (Miscellaneous Reference Application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5/eng@2025-01-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.