Cherotich (Donee) (Suing on Behalf of Edwin Kabuiywa Mamit) v Dc Ngeno & Company Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E013 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7708 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan High Court struck out a client's challenge to a Kshs 1.56 million lawyer's fee award because it was filed past the 14-day deadline without permission.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the reference was competent having been filed out of time
The reference filed 22 days after the taxing decision, without the 14-day Notice of Objection timeline being met or extension of time sought, was incompetent
The taxing decision delivered on 29th April 2025 contained no reasons. The Applicant requested reasons on 9th May 2025 but none were supplied. Under the Evans Thiga Gaturu principle, a party intending to file a reference after 14 days must seek extension of time under Paragraph 11(4). The Applicant neither explained the delay nor sought enlargement, so the reference was struck out.
Whether the Taxing Officer's decision should be set aside for errors of principle
The court did not reach the merits because the reference was incompetent, but reiterated that interference is only justified upon an error of principle or where the award is manifestly excessive
The court adopted the Kipkorir, Tito & Kiara test and the Kamunyori elaboration that failure to ascertain the correct subject matter or its value, or a manifestly excessive award, constitutes an error of principle. However, since the reference was struck out as incompetent, these merits were not determined.
Costs of the application
Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and were awarded to the Respondent
The court applied the general rule that a successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs unless the court for good reason directs otherwise. The Respondent, having succeeded in having the reference struck out, was entitled to costs.
Legal principles established
#- A Judge will not normally interfere with a Taxing Officer's exercise of discretion unless the Taxing Officer erred in principle
- Failure to ascertain the correct subject matter or value of the suit is an error of principle justifying interference with taxation
- A reference filed outside the 14-day period without extension of time under Paragraph 11(4) is incompetent and liable to be struck out
- Timelines fixed by statute or subsidiary legislation must be strictly complied with
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicant's reference dated 22nd May, 2025 was struck out for being filed out of time and without leave
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A & 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order and Schedule 6 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cherotich (Donee) (Suing on Behalf of Edwin Kabuiywa Mamit) v Dc Ngeno & Company Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E013 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7708 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kericho Chief Magistrate Misc. Application No. E001 of 2025 (Reference dated 22nd May, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7708/eng@2025-11-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.