Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedBungoma Petition No. 15 of 2016· [2025] KEELC 5412 (KLR)

Wanyonyi & 2 others (suing on behalf of the estate of the late Vincent Wanyonyi Murambi) v County Government of Bungoma & another (Petition 15 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 5412 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
10 July 2025
ECE.C. Cherono
1,547 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed Bungoma County and Kibabii University to challenge a costs ruling late, ruling that substance beats procedure.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Bungoma in Petition No. 15 of 2016, dealing with two applications arising from taxation of party and party costs by Deputy Registrar Harriet Getenga on 2 October 2024, in which the 1st and 2nd Respondents' (County Government of Bungoma and Kibabii University) bill was taxed at Kshs. 457,241.67 and the 1st Respondent's bill was taxed off entirely. The Respondents/Applicants sought leave to file a Taxation Reference out of time, contending the Taxing Master failed to supply reasons for the taxation despite their notices of objection and letter requesting reasons. The Petitioners filed no response or submissions. The court, citing First American Bank v Gulab P Shah, held that its discretion under paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order to extend time is unfettered but requires a plausible explanation for the delay. On perusal of the taxing master's ruling, the judge found it already contained the reasoning and justification for the taxation; a brief response referring the applicants to the ruling would have sufficed, and a party cannot insist on reasons already contained in the ruling. The court held that insistence on strict procedural compliance was contrary to the oxygen principles and Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. The application dated 23/04/2025 was allowed: leave to file the reference was granted, fees were to be paid within 14 days, and the matter set down for compliance and further directions. The Petitioners' application dated 04/11/2024 was to be handled jointly with the newly allowed reference. No costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay in filing the taxation reference was excusable

Holding

The delay was not justified because the Taxing Master's ruling already contained the reasons for taxation

Reasoning

The court perused the ruling of 02/10/2024 and found it contained both reasoning and justification for the taxation of the items. Although there was no direct response to the applicants' letter requesting reasons, the ruling was self-explanatory, and a brief response referring the applicants to it would have sufficed. The applicants' insistence on strict procedural compliance was superficial and contrary to the oxygen principles and Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. The delay could have been avoided had the applicants referred themselves to the ruling.

p. 4
02

Whether leave to file the reference out of time should be granted

Holding

Leave granted; the application dated 23/04/2025 was found merited

Reasoning

Applying First American Bank of Kenya Ltd v Gulab P Shah, the court's discretion under paragraph 11(4) is unfettered and requires a plausible explanation for the delay. Finding the ruling self-explanatory and procedural rigidity unmerited, the court exercised its discretion to allow the respondents to file their taxation reference, with fees to be paid within 14 days.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A court has unfettered discretion under paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order to extend time for filing a reference, provided there is a plausible explanation for the delay
  • A party cannot insist on being supplied with reasons already contained in the taxing master's ruling

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondents (County Government of Bungoma and Kibabii University) are granted leave to file a Taxation Reference against the Ruling on assessed costs delivered on 2nd October, 2024
  2. 2.The Respondents/Applicants shall pay the requisite fees for the objection to the Taxing Officer and the Application for Reference annexed to the chamber summons within 14 days of the ruling
  3. 3.The matter shall be set down for compliance with the orders and further directions

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration OrderParagraph 11(1) and (2)
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderParagraph 11(4) (referred to as sub paragraph (4) of rule 11)
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 62 (referred to in grounds)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)(d)

Cases cited (2)

  • First American Bank of Kenya Ltd v Gulab P Shah & 2 Others
    Nairobi (Milimani) HCCC No. 2255 of 2000 [2002] 1 EA 65
  • Republic v. Kenyatta University & Another Ex Parte Wellington Kihato Wamburu
    [2018] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order (discretion to extend time to file a reference)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wanyonyi & 2 others (suing on behalf of the estate of the late Vincent Wanyonyi Murambi) v County Government of Bungoma & another (Petition 15 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 5412 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Bungoma Petition No. 15 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5412/eng@2025-07-10

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