Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedChamber Summons application dated 25th November, 2024 (arising from Kericho Environment and Land Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2024)· [2025] KEELC 5697 (KLR)

Obondo Koko & Company Advocates v Chepngetich (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5697 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya, Environment and Land Court, Kericho
31 July 2025
LOL. A. OMOLLO
3,026 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kericho court allowed a lawyer to appeal a ruling that slashed his legal fees, confirming there is no deadline for such appeals in Kenya.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by L. A. Omollo, Judge of the Environment and Land Court at Kericho, determines a Chamber Summons application dated 25th November 2024 brought by advocate Franklin Obondo Koko under Rule 11(3) & (4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order and Article 159 of the Constitution, seeking leave to appeal against the court's ruling of 17th October 2024 on a reference concerning the taxation of his advocate-client bill of costs in ELC Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2024, arising from Kericho ELC Case No. 19 of 2018. That earlier ruling had set aside several items of the Taxing Officer's decision, taxed item 1 at Kshs. 900,000 and item 1A at Kshs. 300,000, struck off numerous other items, awarded VAT, and directed each party to bear its own costs. The Applicant argued dissatisfaction with the reduction of his costs and failed negotiation attempts with the Respondent. The Respondent, self-representing and a former client, opposed, alleging the Applicant received Kshs. 12,286,298 on her behalf without consent, paid her only Kshs. 5,693,000, and brought the application as a delaying tactic against proceedings before the Advocates Complaints Commission. The court framed a single issue: whether leave should be granted. Applying Wambugu Kariuki & Associates v Invesco Assurance, JMM v GNJ, and Nasibwa Wakenya Moses v University of Nairobi, it held that Rule 11(3) confers a discretion to be exercised judiciously, prescribes no time limit for such appeals, and that the advocate-client fund dispute was not for resolution by this court. The application was allowed: leave to lodge an appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted, with costs to abide the outcome of the intended appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant showed just cause for the grant of leave to appeal and whether the Respondent would be prejudiced.

Holding

The court found the application had merit and granted leave, holding that the dispute over the advocate-client funds was not for resolution by this court.

Reasoning

The court applied the discretion in Rule 11(3), drawing on Wambugu Kariuki & Associates v Invesco Assurance and JMM v GNJ on the judicious exercise of discretion. It considered whether just cause was shown and whether prejudice would result. Noting that Rule 11(3) sets no time limit, it rejected the lapsed-time objection and observed that any dispute over the advocate-client money was not for this court, then allowed the application.

p. 7
02

Whether the time for filing the appeal had lapsed.

Holding

No time limit is prescribed under Paragraph 11(3), so the objection failed.

Reasoning

Relying on Nasibwa Wakenya Moses v University of Nairobi, the court held that Paragraph 11(3) of the Advocates Remuneration Order does not prescribe a time limit within which an appeal to the Court of Appeal must be lodged. The Respondent's contention that the appeal period had lapsed therefore could not stand, and delay could not defeat the application for leave.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Leave of the Judge is a precondition to an appeal to the Court of Appeal against a Judge's decision on a taxation reference under the Advocates Remuneration Order.
  • Paragraph 11(3) of the Advocates Remuneration Order prescribes no time limit for appealing to the Court of Appeal, so a lapsed-time objection fails.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave is hereby granted to the Applicant to lodge an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of this court upon objection on taxation referred to it and decided on 17th October, 2024
  2. 2.Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderParagraph 11(3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Wambugu Kariuki & Associates v Invesco Assurance Company Limited
    [2018] eKLR
  • JMM v GNJ
    (Civil Appeal (Application) E014 of 2022) [2023] KECA 99 (KLR) (3 February 2023) (Ruling)
  • Nasibwa Wakenya Moses v University of Nairobi & another
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11(3) & (4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order and Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Obondo Koko & Company Advocates v Chepngetich (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5697 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons application dated 25th November, 2024 (arising from Kericho Environment and Land Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5697/eng@2025-07-31

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