Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment (miscellaneous application arising from Kisumu ELCC No. 186 of 2018, formerly Kisii ELC No. 40 of 2016)· [2025] KEELC 5580 (KLR)

Rege v Achola & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E012 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5580 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 July 2025
SOS. OKONG’O
2,446 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to extend time for challenging a taxed advocate-client bill because a required objection notice was never filed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant moved the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu by Originating Summons dated 24th July 2024 seeking leave to file a reference out of time against the taxation of the Respondents' party and party bill of costs by Hon. K. Cheruiyot SPM on 7th December 2022 in Kisumu ELCC No. 186 of 2018, in which costs of Kshs. 699,345/- were awarded. The Applicant complained that the taxing officer had increased instruction fees from Kshs. 90,000/- to Kshs. 285,000/- contrary to the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014, and blamed his previous advocates for failing to communicate the outcome of the suit and taxation. The Respondents opposed through grounds of opposition, arguing the application was incompetent, brought after inordinate delay, and an abuse of process. The court framed a single issue: whether leave to file a reference out of time should be granted. Applying the Salat principles on extension of time, the court held that time to challenge the taxation ran from the delivery of the ruling on 7th December 2022, not from the issuance of the certificate of costs on 30th March 2023. Crucially, the Applicant had never served a notice of objection to taxation under paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, rendering the reference filed under paragraph 11(2) incompetent and incapable of being deemed properly filed; and the application itself was filed over a year after the reference with no reasonable explanation. The Originating Summons was dismissed with costs to the Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court should grant leave to file a reference out of time

Holding

The application was dismissed; the reference was incompetent for want of a notice of objection to taxation and the application was filed after inordinate, unexplained delay.

Reasoning

Time began running on the delivery of the taxation ruling, not the certificate of costs. The Applicant never served a notice of objection as required under paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, so the reference filed under paragraph 11(2) was fatally defective and could not be deemed properly filed. The application sought to validate only the reference, not the missing notice of objection. Further, the application was filed over a year after the defective reference, and no reasonable explanation was given for the delay.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A reference under paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order filed without a notice of objection under paragraph 11(1) is incompetent.
  • Time to object to a taxation runs from delivery of the taxation ruling, not from issuance of the certificate of costs.
  • Extension of time is a discretionary equitable remedy, not a right of a party.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Originating Summons dated 24th July 2024 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration OrderParagraph 1(B) Schedule 6; Paragraph 11(1), (2), (3), (4)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)

Cases cited (9)

  • Selestica v Gold Rock Development Ltd.
    [2015] eKLR
  • Bank of Africa Kenya Limited v Put Sarajevo General Engineering Co. Ltd & 2 Others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC & 7 others
    Supreme Court Application No. 16 of 2014 [2014] eKLR
  • Utalii Transport Company Limited & 3 Others v NIC Bank Limited & Another
    [2014] eKLR
  • Paul Wanjohi Mathenge v Duncan Gichane Mathenge
    [2013] eKLR
  • Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi
    Civil Application No Nai 255 of 1997 (unreported)
  • Nyiha, Mukoma & Company Advocates v Reynolds Mwangi Kinyanjui & Another
    Nairobi ELC Misc. Application No. 148 of 2014
  • Ufundi Co-operative Savings and Credit Society v Njeri Onyango & Company Advocates
    [2015] eKLR
  • Kenya Airports Authority v Queens Insurance Agency
    Nairobi HCC No. 1430 of 2000
Jurisdiction invoked
Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014 (power of the High Court to enlarge time)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rege v Achola & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E012 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5580 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (miscellaneous application arising from Kisumu ELCC No. 186 of 2018, formerly Kisii ELC No. 40 of 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5580/eng@2025-07-24

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