Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNot stated in the extract (Machakos ELC, related to Machakos ELC Misc. E014 of 2022)· [2025] KEELC 4678 (KLR)

Wendano Matuu Company Limited v Muli & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 31 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 4678 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 June 2025
AKA. Y. Koross
1,291 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a challenge to a taxation ruling because the party skipped the mandatory 14-day notice of objection step.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Machakos, delivered by Hon. A. Y. Koross, Judge, on 24 June 2025, determined a chamber summons dated 14/12/2023 filed by the 2nd defendant under Order 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The 2nd defendant sought to set aside a taxation ruling dated 6/12/2023 on its amended party and party bill of costs dated 5/09/2023 and to have the matter remitted for retaxation, complaining that instruction fees had been taxed at Kshs. 125,000/- instead of the proposed Kshs. 2,423,000/- despite the suit property being valued at Kshs. 80,750,000/-, that the getting-up fee of Kshs. 807,666.67 was taxed off without reasons, and that the figure of Kshs. 2,423,000 had been confirmed in Machakos ELC Misc. E014 of 2022. The plaintiff opposed, asserting the taxed costs of Kshs. 150,161 were proper and that no error of principle had been demonstrated. The court framed two issues: whether the summons was filed prematurely, and whether the taxing officer's decision should be set aside. On the first issue, it held that a notice of objection to the taxing officer within 14 days is a mandatory pre-emptive step under Order 11(1). Finding no evidence any such notice was issued, the court held the reference was incompetent, null and void ab initio, and found it unnecessary to address the second issue. It struck out the chamber summons with no orders as to costs and marked the file as closed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Prematurity/competence of the reference

Holding

The reference was premature and incompetent because the 2nd defendant never issued a notice of objection to the taxing officer as required by Order 11(1) before moving the court by chamber summons.

Reasoning

Order 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order prescribes an elaborate procedure: an aggrieved party must first give written notice of objection to the taxing officer within 14 days, after which reasons are recorded and a reference may be filed. The court found no evidence that the 2nd defendant issued any such notice, describing the omission as grave. The 2nd defendant therefore skipped an essential step, pre-empted the objection process, and the reference was incompetent, null and void ab initio, making it unnecessary to consider the merits of the taxation.

p. 3
02

Whether the decision of the taxing officer should be set aside

Holding

Not addressed, because the summons having been found incompetent, the court deemed it unnecessary to consider the second issue.

Reasoning

The court held that once the chamber summons was found incompetent on the threshold issue of prematurity, there was no basis to consider whether the taxing officer's decision of 6/12/2023 should be set aside and the matter remitted for retaxation. The objections on instruction fees and getting-up fees were therefore never reached on the merits.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Filing a notice of objection with the taxing officer within 14 days is a mandatory pre-emptive step before lodging a reference under Order 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order; skipping it renders the reference incompetent.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The chamber summons dated 14/12/2023 is struck out with no orders as to costs.
  2. 2.The file is marked as closed.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates (Remuneration) OrderOrder 11
  • Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014Schedule 6

Cases cited (2)

  • Ahmednasir Abdikadir & Co. Advocates vs. National Bank of Kenya Limited (2)
    [2006] 1 EA 5
  • Evans Thiga Gaturu, Advocate V Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
    [2012] Kehc 4274 (Klr)
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wendano Matuu Company Limited v Muli & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 31 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 4678 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract (Machakos ELC, related to Machakos ELC Misc. E014 of 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4678/eng@2025-06-24

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