Hussein Builders Limited v Oceanic Towers Limited (Environment and Land Case 110 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 6177 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court refused to excuse a late fee challenge because the defendant skipped a required objection step and gave unconvincing reasons for the delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Extension of time to file a reference out of time
Extension refused; the defendant's explanations (taxing officer's failure to communicate reasons and a director attending a sick father) were rejected as untrue and unsupported
The record and the Case Tracking System showed the ruling was posted on 05.12.2024 after the defendant's advocates orally requested reasons, contradicting the blame placed on the taxing officer. The advocates had already obtained 30 days stay to file a reference, undermining the claim of absent instructions, and no evidence showed all officials were attending to a sick person. The application was found to be an afterthought to delay payment of costs.
Merit of the intended reference
The court declined to determine merits but held the defendant could not mount a competent reference for non-compliance with paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order
There was no evidence in the court file or CTS that the defendant issued the requisite notice of objection to the taxing officer as required by paragraph 11(1). The court endorsed Muiruri & Wachira Advocates vs Nicola Farms Limited, which holds that without a valid notice of objection any intended reference is a nullity, so time cannot be extended to cure the missing foundation.
Costs of the application
Costs awarded to the plaintiff as the successful litigant
Applying Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, costs follow the event, and there was no good reason why the successful litigant should be denied the costs of the application.
Legal principles established
#- Discretion to extend time must be exercised judicially and upon reason, not capriciously or on sympathy
- A reference under the Advocates Remuneration Order can only be filed if a valid notice of objection to taxation was lodged under paragraph 11(1); without it a reference is a nullity
- Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 28.02.2025 and filed on 11.03.2025 is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) and paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hussein Builders Limited v Oceanic Towers Limited (Environment and Land Case 110 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 6177 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6177/eng@2025-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.