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 OutReference dated 5th May 2025 (Notice of Motion dated 05.05.2025)· [2025] KEELC 6207 (KLR)

Rantaine v Paro (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E005 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6207 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
25 September 2025
MMM.N Mwanyale
954 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court struck out a challenge to a lawyer's fee ruling because it was filed too late without asking for extra time.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by M.N Mwanyale J at Kilgoris determines a reference dated 5th May 2025 challenging the taxation ruling of 21st March 2025, in which the Applicant, acting in person, sought to set aside or vacate items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 19, 20, 21, 22, 40 and 41 of a Bill of Costs dated 03.02.2023. The Bill related to an appeal that was withdrawn with costs before hearing, after which another appeal was filed; a certificate of costs had issued. The Respondent, through the replying affidavit of Winnie Maureen Mireri Esq Advocate, objected that the reference did not meet the requirements of paragraph 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order and was an abuse of process. The court framed three issues: competence, merit, and costs. Holding that paragraph 11 confers jurisdiction on the court to hear references, the court found that the Applicant neither requested the taxing officer's reasons within 14 days nor filed the reference within 14 days of the ruling of 21.03.2025; the reference filed on 05.05.2025 was out of time and no leave for extension of time was sought under Rule 11(iv), rendering it incompetent. Relying on Imarika Sacco v Katana and Ms. Lubelelah and Associates Advocates v N.K. Brothers Limited, the court struck out the reference with costs to the Respondent and declined to consider the merits.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competence of the reference

Holding

The reference was incompetent for having been filed out of time and without leave for extension of time, which is a jurisdictional bar.

Reasoning

Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order requires notice of objection within 14 days and filing of the reference within 14 days of the taxing decision or receipt of reasons. The Applicant did not place before the court any letter requesting reasons, so the 14 days ran from the Ruling delivered on 21.03.2025. The reference filed on 05.05.2025 was out of time and no extension was sought under Rule 11(iv).

p. 2
02

Merits of the reference

Holding

Not considered; the court declined to determine the merits once the reference was found incompetent.

Reasoning

Having found the reference incompetent on jurisdictional grounds, the court expressly refrained from addressing the Applicant's complaints that no reasons were given in the taxation Ruling and that the taxation was capricious, as well as the dispute over the withdrawn appeal and the new file number.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A reference under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order must be filed within 14 days of the taxing master's decision (or within 14 days of receipt of reasons where reasons are requested), and the court has no jurisdiction to entertain a reference filed out of time absent an order enlarging time under Rule 11(iv).

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Reference filed vide the Notice of Motion dated 05.05.2025, having been filed out of time, is struck out with costs
  2. 2.Costs of the reference awarded to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration OrderParagraph 11(1), (2) and (iv)

Cases cited (2)

  • Imarika Sacco Vs. Katana
    Miscellaneous Reference E015/2024
  • Ms. Lubelelah and Associates Advocates Vs. N.K. Brothers Limited
    Miscellaneous Civil Case 52/2012 (2014) KEHC 7393
Jurisdiction invoked
Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rantaine v Paro (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E005 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6207 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Reference dated 5th May 2025 (Notice of Motion dated 05.05.2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6207/eng@2025-09-25

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