Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment (ruling on Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 24th January 2023 and Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 17th June 2025)· [2025] KEELC 7308 (KLR)

E.M Juma & Co Advocates v Chesyina (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E043 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7308 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 October 2025
MOM. A. ODENY
2,277 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Nakuru turned a lawyer's taxed fees certificate into an enforceable judgment and threw out the client's attempt to challenge the taxation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru (M. A. Odeny, J) determined two competing notices of motion arising from an advocate-client taxation. The Applicant, an advocate, sought adoption as judgment and decree of a Certificate of Costs issued on 2nd September 2021 following taxation of his bill on 24th August 2021 at Kshs 571,710/=, together with interest at 14% per annum from the date of filing the bill. The Respondent sought enlargement of time to file a reference against the taxation, contending that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to tax an advocate-client bill arising from an Environment and Land Court matter contrary to Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, that the certificate was null and void ab initio, and that the bill should be taxed afresh. The Respondent also disputed the existence of a retainer and alleged delay and lack of privity following the death and substitution of the original plaintiff. The court found that a reference had in fact been filed in the High Court (Misc. Application No. 76 of 2021) but was dismissed for want of prosecution on 15th November 2022, so the correct remedy was an application to reinstate it rather than enlargement of time for a fresh reference. Holding that the matter, having been transferred to the ELC, fell within its jurisdiction, the court allowed the adoption application as prayed and dismissed the Respondent's application with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Adoption of the certificate of costs as judgment and decree

Holding

The adoption application is merited; the certificate of costs issued on 2nd September 2021 is adopted as judgment and decree of the court

Reasoning

The Applicant sought adoption of a certificate of costs arising from a taxation order of 24th August 2021. The court noted that the reference filed in the High Court was dismissed for want of prosecution and that the Respondent had not successfully challenged the taxation. The matter, having been transferred to the Environment and Land Court, gave the court jurisdiction; the adoption application was therefore allowed as prayed.

p. 5
02

Enlargement of time to file a reference and challenge to the taxing officer's jurisdiction

Holding

The Respondent's application dated 17th June 2025 was dismissed as lacking merit

Reasoning

The Respondent contended the High Court lacked jurisdiction to tax an advocate-client bill arising from an ELC matter and sought enlargement of time to file a reference. The court found a reference had in fact been filed in the High Court but was dismissed for want of prosecution on 15th November 2022, and the correct remedy was an application to reinstate it, not enlargement of time for a fresh reference. The application was therefore dismissed.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a matter has been transferred to the Environment and Land Court for hearing and determination, that court has jurisdiction to deal with applications arising from it, including adoption of a certificate of costs issued by the High Court
  • A party whose reference in the High Court was dismissed for want of prosecution should apply to reinstate that reference rather than seek enlargement of time to file a fresh one

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Applicant's application for adoption of the Certificate of Costs dated 2nd September 2021 as a decree and judgment of the court is allowed as prayed
  2. 2.The Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 17th June 2025 is dismissed with costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Matter transferred from the High Court to the Environment and Land Court; jurisdiction discussed by reference to Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "E.M Juma & Co Advocates v Chesyina (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E043 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7308 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (ruling on Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 24th January 2023 and Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 17th June 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7308/eng@2025-10-28

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