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 judgment (arising from Kilgoris ELC No. 006 of 2023)· [2025] KEELC 4743 (KLR)

Cheruiyot v Ngeno & 5 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4743 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 June 2025
MMM.N. Mwanyale
1,739 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court struck out a costs reference filed just one day late, confirming that strict 14-day deadlines under Rule 11 cannot be missed without the court's permission.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kilgoris (M.N. Mwanyale J) determined a reference challenging the Deputy Registrar's ruling of 6 February 2025 on the certificate of taxation of the Respondent's Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 28 November 2024, arising from Kilgoris ELC No. 006 of 2023 (Hon. Zakayo Cheruiyot v Koileken Ole Samurai and 15 Others). The Applicants sought that various items of the bill, or the whole bill, be taxed afresh by another taxing officer, complaining that the taxed amounts were excessive, that no valuation report supported the instruction fees, that getting up fees were premature since the suit had not been set down for hearing, and that service awards of Kshs 10,000 per item were excessive where service was effected by email. The Respondent objected that the reference was filed out of time under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The court framed four issues but determined only the competency of the reference. Holding that the taxing officer's ruling contained the reasons for taxation, the court found the reference should have been filed within 14 days of 6 February 2025, i.e. by 20 February 2025; it was filed on 21 February 2025, one day late, and no extension of time was sought under Rule 11(4). Relying on Ahmed Nassir v National Bank of Kenya, Imarika Sacco v Katana and Ms. Lubuleliah and Associates Advocates v N.K Brothers Limited, the court held it had no jurisdiction to entertain an out-of-time reference and did not address the merits. The reference was struck out with costs to the Respondent and the stay orders were vacated.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the reference was competently filed within the time prescribed by Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Holding

The reference was incompetent, having been filed one day out of time and without leave for extension of time

Reasoning

The taxing officer's ruling of 6 February 2025 contained the reasons for taxation at paragraphs 7 to 14, so the Applicant did not need to request reasons under subrule 1 and had to file the reference within 14 days under subrule 2. The deadline was 20 February 2025; the reference was filed on 21 February 2025. No extension of time was sought under subrule 4, which the court is empowered to grant. Following Ahmed Nassir and Imarika Sacco, an out-of-time reference without leave is incompetent and robs the court of jurisdiction to consider its merits.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Where the taxing officer's ruling contains the reasons for the taxation, a reference must be filed within 14 days of the ruling; no prior request for reasons is needed
  • A reference filed out of time without leave under Rule 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order is incompetent and cannot be entertained

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The reference is struck out for having been filed out of time without leave.
  2. 2.Costs of the reference awarded to the Respondent.
  3. 3.The stay orders previously issued are vacated.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 11 (subrules 1, 2 and 4)
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderParagraph 9(d)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 9A

Cases cited (11)

  • Bernard Gichobi Njira v Kanini Njira Kathendu and Another
  • Peter Muthoka and Another v Ochieng and 3 Others
  • C.N Kihara and Advocates v Maendeleo ya Wanawake Organisation (MYWO)
    [2021] eKLR
  • Aoro v Were Reference Application E019 of 2022
    [Judgment] KEHC 1468
  • Moses Mwiligi and Others v IEBC
    [2016] eKLR
  • Martin Mburu and Chepkemboi Advocates v Occidental Insurance Company
  • Ahmed Nassir v National Bank of Kenya
    2006 E.A
  • Evans Thiga Gaturu Advocate v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
    2012 eKLR
  • Kipkorir, Titoo and Kiara Advocates v Deposit Protection Fund Board
    [2005] IKLR 528
  • Imarika Sacco v Katana Miscellaneous Reference E015/2024
    [2025] Ruling KEELRC 1135 [KLR]
  • Ms. Lubuleliah and Associates Advocates v N.K Brothers Limited Miscellaneous Civil Case 52/2012
    [2014] KEHC 7393
On appeal from
Deputy Registrar (Taxing Officer), Environment and Land Court, Kilgoris
Taxation of Party and Party Bill of Costs dated 28.11.2024 in Kilgoris ELC No. 006 of 2023
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order (reference against decision of a taxing officer)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Cheruiyot v Ngeno & 5 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4743 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (arising from Kilgoris ELC No. 006 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4743/eng@2025-06-26

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