Nabasenge t/a Kutto & Kaira Nabasenge Advocates v Sum & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E039 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1287 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court dismissed an advocate's late challenge to a taxed fee bill because he skipped the required written notice to the Taxing Officer and used the wrong application form.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Extension of time to file a reference out of time
Extension refused because the Applicant never gave the Paragraph 11(1) notice in writing, so the Paragraph 11(2) fourteen-day period had not started running
The court examined Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014 and held that the objector's first mandatory step is written notice to the Taxing Officer within 14 days of the decision. The Applicant admitted learning of the assessment on 21st or 29th August 2024 but never gave that notice. Since the Rule 11(2) period commences only upon receipt of the Taxing Officer's reasons, that period had not lapsed and could not be extended.
Whether the Notice of Motion could be deemed a proper reference
It could not: a reference must be by Chamber Summons filed after receipt of the Taxing Officer's reasons, neither of which was satisfied
Paragraph 11(2) prescribes a Chamber Summons as the vehicle for a reference to a Judge, filed after receipt of the Taxing Officer's reasons. The Applicant used a Notice of Motion and failed to attach the Taxing Officer's grounds/reasons for the assessment of 20th August 2024. Without those reasons the court had nothing to evaluate for misapprehension of fact or law, rendering the application premature and non-compliant with Paragraph 11(1) and (2).
Merits of the challenge to the taxation of instruction fees
Not reached on the merits; the prayers were refused for procedural non-compliance
The Applicant had earlier succeeded in a reference when a ruling of 6th March 2023 was set aside and the Bill of Costs re-assessed before another Taxing Officer, who awarded KShs 104,922/- by ruling dated 20th August 2024. The Respondents maintained that the assessment was proper under the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014 since the subject matter concerned re-survey orders, not ownership of land worth KShs 760,800,000/-. The court did not adjudicate these contentions, declining the prayers on procedural grounds.
Legal principles established
#- Under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014, an objector must first give notice in writing to the Taxing Officer within 14 days of the decision; the 14-day period for filing a reference to a Judge runs only from receipt of the Taxing Officer's reasons
- A reference to a Judge under Paragraph 11(2) must be brought by Chamber Summons and must be supported by the Taxing Officer's written reasons; without them the court has nothing to evaluate
- A court cannot extend time within a period that has not yet begun to run
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 25.10.2024 is not merited and is therefore dismissed forthwith
- 2.The Applicant is condemned to pay the costs of the application to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014 against a Taxing Officer's decision; the judgment does not cite a constitutional provision
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nabasenge t/a Kutto & Kaira Nabasenge Advocates v Sum & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E039 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1287 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Misc. Application (Notice of Motion dated 25th October 2024), Eldoret. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1287/eng@2025-03-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.