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 the excerpt provided· [2025] KEELC 6961 (KLR)

Mount Kenya University v Step Up Holdings Limited (Environment and Land Case 196 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6961 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
15 October 2025
MOM. A. ODENY
1,447 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

#

The Environment and Land Court in Nakuru refused to extend a missed deadline for objecting to a taxed legal bill, because the party had already paid most of the amount.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by M. A. Odeny, Judge of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru, disposed of the Defendant/Applicant's Chamber Summons application dated 6th August 2024, which sought enlargement of time to give notice in writing to the taxing officer of items of taxation objected to, under Rule 11(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The application was supported by an affidavit of the Defendant's counsel, Samson M. Omae, who explained that although he attended court on 9th May 2024 and took a ruling date of 4th July 2024, he noted the date in his file but failed to record it in his diary, so the ruling was delivered without any Notice of Objection being filed and served. He relied on the principle that a mistake of counsel should not be visited on the client and contended the application was brought without inordinate delay. The Plaintiff/Respondent opposed, deponing that the Applicant's counsel had actual knowledge of the ruling, requested settlement details, and paid a cheque of Kshs 400,000 out of the taxed Kshs 411,725, and that allowing the application would drag the Respondent back into a concluded process. The court framed a single issue: whether to exercise its discretion to enlarge time. Applying Rule 11 of the ARO and Twiga Motor Limited v Hon. Dalmas Otieno Onyango, the court held that the rules' timelines exist for orderliness and fairness, and found that counsel and the Applicant were aware of the ruling, engaged in settlement paying 98% of the sum, and had not explained the delay. The application was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court should enlarge time for filing a notice of objection to taxation under Rule 11(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order

Holding

The court declined to enlarge time, dismissing the application for lack of merit

Reasoning

Rule 11 of the ARO requires a party aggrieved by a taxation decision to give notice of objection within fourteen days. The court has discretion under Rule 11(4) to enlarge even expired time, but that discretion must be exercised on a satisfactory explanation. Here counsel knew of the ruling of 4th July 2024, engaged in settlement, and paid Kshs 400,000 out of Kshs 411,725. The failure was not explained, and the lapse of only about one month did not cure the absence of a reasonable explanation. The mistake-of-counsel argument failed because counsel and client were jointly aware of the ruling.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A party aggrieved by the Taxing Master's award must follow the procedure under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, and the limits in the timelines are there for a reason
  • Rules and procedures governing litigation exist to ensure orderliness, predictability, fair trial and proper administration of justice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Chamber Summons application dated 6th August, 2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the Plaintiff/Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates (Remuneration) OrderRule 11(1), (2), (3), (4)

Cases cited (6)

  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Mutua Mwangangi & Another v James Mutua Mutio
    [2016] KEHC 6240 (KLR)
  • Mumias Sugar Company Limited v Tom Ojienda & Associates
    [2018] KEHC 7836 (KLR)
  • Peter Macahria Kariuki v James Kibara & another
    [2020] KEELC 1514 (KLR)
  • Iimbani Dispensary Project v Abdi (Miscellaneous Application 195 of 2019)
    [2024] KEELC 5569
  • Twiga Motor Limited v. Hon. Dalmas Otieno Onyango
    [2015] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order - power of the Court to enlarge time fixed by subparagraph (1) or (2)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mount Kenya University v Step Up Holdings Limited (Environment and Land Case 196 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6961 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6961/eng@2025-10-15

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