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 OutNot stated in judgment (Reference by Chamber Summons dated 24th April 2025; Notice of Motion dated 9th May 2025)· [2025] KEELC 7716 (KLR)

Afyare Enterprises Company Limited v Mugambi & 2 others; Mugambi (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case 1626 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 7716 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 November 2025
MKMOHAMMED N. KULLOW
1,811 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court struck out a challenge to taxed legal costs because the losing party missed the mandatory 14-day objection deadline and never sought an extension.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (Mohammed N. Kullow J.) determines two competing applications arising from the taxation of the 2nd Defendant's party-and-party bill of costs following judgment in its counterclaim over property L.R. No. 36/VIII/403, Eastleigh, Nairobi. The Taxing Officer, Hon. T.E. Marienga (Deputy Registrar), taxed the bill at Kshs. 1,998,596.67 on 19th December 2024, using the Kshs. 500,000 special damages award as the subject value. The 2nd Defendant filed a Reference on 24th April 2025 seeking to set aside or vary the taxation, alleging misapplication of Schedule 6 and ignoring a claimed Kshs. 445 million subject value. The Plaintiff sought to strike out the Reference as fatally out of time. The court framed one central question: whether the Reference was competently filed under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014. It held the Paragraph 11 scheme sequential and mandatory: the notice of objection was due within fourteen days of the 19th December 2024 ruling, yet the 2nd Defendant's letter is dated 26th February 2025, and no application for enlargement of time under Paragraph 11(4) was ever made. Following Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S', the court found the jurisdictional chain broken at inception and, in any event, found the taxation itself properly exercised. The Plaintiff's Notice of Motion was allowed; the Reference was struck out; the Taxing Officer's ruling and Certificate of Taxation stand undisturbed; each party bears its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Timeliness and jurisdiction of the Reference

Holding

The Reference was incompetent; the notice of objection was lodged months outside the 14-day window and no enlargement of time was sought, breaking the chain of jurisdiction at inception

Reasoning

Paragraph 11 prescribes a sequential and mandatory scheme: notice of objection within 14 days, then reasons, then a reference within 14 days. Time under Paragraph 11(4) may be enlarged only by formal application. The taxation ruling was delivered on 19th December 2024; the objection letter is dated 26th February 2025 and endorsed 14th April 2025. No application under Paragraph 11(4) was made, so the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Reference.

p. 3
02

Whether the Taxing Officer's discretion was properly exercised

Holding

Even on the merits the court found no basis for interference; the Taxing Officer properly used the Kshs. 500,000 award as the subject value and considered the Joreth factors

Reasoning

The court held that even if it could overlook the procedural defect, the Taxing Officer's decision reflected the guiding factors in Joreth Ltd v Kigano and Premchand Raichand. The judgment made no finding on the alleged Kshs. 445 million value, so the Kshs. 500,000 award was correctly identified as the quantifiable subject for taxation.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Compliance with Paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order - a notice of objection within fourteen days - is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a reference; without it or an enlargement of time the court has no jurisdiction
  • Filing a reference within fourteen days of receiving reasons does not cure a failure to lodge the notice of objection within time

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 9th May 2025 is allowed
  2. 2.The 2nd Defendant's Chamber Summons dated 24th April 2025 (Reference) is struck out in its entirety for being filed out of time and without leave of the Court as required under Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
  3. 3.The Taxing Officer's Ruling delivered on 19th December 2024 and the Certificate of Taxation issued thereunder remain valid and undisturbed
  4. 4.Each party to bear its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014Paragraph 11(1), (2) and (4); Schedule 6 Paragraph 1(b)

Cases cited (4)

  • Joreth Ltd v Kigano & Another
    [2002] E.A. 92
  • Ngomeni Swimmers Ltd v Zedi Ahmed Said & 9 Others
    ELC Malindi Case No. 15 of 2010, E.K. Makori J., 2025
  • Owners of the Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    [1989] KLR 1
  • Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd
    [1972] E.A. 162
Jurisdiction invoked
Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014, Paragraph 11; original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the Reference

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Afyare Enterprises Company Limited v Mugambi & 2 others; Mugambi (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case 1626 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 7716 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Reference by Chamber Summons dated 24th April 2025; Notice of Motion dated 9th May 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7716/eng@2025-11-04

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