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 OutKilgoris ELC Petition No. 7 of 2021 (Formerly Narok ELC Petition No. 3 of 2021) - Reference dated 19th August 2025· [2026] KEELC 21 (KLR)

Tankoi & 9 others v Chief Land Registrar & 3 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 21 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
19 January 2026
MMM.N. Mwanyale
1,539 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

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a late challenge to a legal fees ruling because it missed the strict 14-day deadline for filing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This judgment of the Environment and Land Court at Kilgoris (M.N. Mwanyale, J) determined a reference dated 19th August 2025 seeking to set aside the taxing master's decision of 12th June 2025 on the interested parties' Bill of costs in Kilgoris ELC Petition No. 7 of 2021 (formerly Narok ELC Petition No. 3 of 2021). The applicants argued the taxing master erred in principle by awarding manifestly excessive instruction fees of Kshs. 500,000 and getting up fees of Kshs. 1,121,408, took irrelevant factors into account, and awarded sums for service without supporting documents. The interested parties (Moses Korinko and Olesopia Masibai) opposed, contending the reference was filed out of time under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order since reasons were contained in the 12th June 2025 ruling. The court framed four issues, chief among them whether a competent reference was before it. Reproducing the impugned ruling and a later CTS letter, the court found the reasons for taxation were contained in the ruling itself, so the 14-day period ran from 12th June 2025, expiring on 26th June 2025. Applying the Ahmed Nassir v. National Bank of Kenya principle that further reasons need not be sought where reasons are already in a considered ruling, the court held the reference filed on 19th August 2025 was out of time and therefore incompetent. Absent any application for extension of time, which the court said it could not grant, the reference was struck out with costs. The court did not reach the merits of the challenged items.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the reasons for the taxation were contained in the ruling of 12th June 2025 or only supplied later by letter dated 6th August 2025

Holding

The reasons for the taxation, including on instruction fees and items of service, were contained in the ruling of 12th June 2025; the 14-day period for filing a reference ran from that date.

Reasoning

The court reproduced the ruling of 12th June 2025, which gave reasons on the value of the subject matter, the nature and importance of the matter, complexity, conduct of proceedings and time taken, and assessed instruction fees. The later CTS letter merely reiterated those reasons and explained service items. Following Ahmed Nassir, a party need not seek further reasons where reasons are already in a considered ruling.

p. 4
02

Whether there is a competent reference before the court

Holding

The reference filed on 19th August 2025 was out of time (last date being 26th June 2025), hence not competent; the court lacked a basis to extend time since no application for extension was made.

Reasoning

The ruling was delivered on 12.06.2025 and the last date to file the reference was 26.06.2025. The reference was filed on 19th August 2025, well outside the 14-day window in Rule 11. The interested parties raised the competency point in submissions as a point of law and jurisdiction. The applicant made no application for extension of time, and the court held it could not extend time on its own motion.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Where the reasons for a taxation on the disputed items are already contained in the taxing master's ruling, a party need not seek further reasons before filing a reference within 14 days under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 19th August 2025 (reference) is struck out
  2. 2.Costs of the reference awarded to the interested parties

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 1(j), Schedule 6
  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 11(1 & 2)

Cases cited (6)

  • Nyagito and Co. Advocates v. Dony O. Lessos Creameries Ltd
    (2014) eKLR
  • Prenchman Ralchand Ltd v Qarry Services of East Africa Ltd
    1972 EA
  • Kipkorir Tito and Kiara Advocates v. Deposit Protection Fund Board
    (2005) eKLR
  • Republic v. Minister for Agriculture and 2 Others Exparte Samuel Muchiri Wa Njuguna and 6 Others
  • Soreth Limited v. Kigano and Associates
    (2001) IEA 92
  • Ahmed Nassir v. National Bank of Kenya
    2006 EA
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order (reference against taxing master's decision)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Tankoi & 9 others v Chief Land Registrar & 3 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 21 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kilgoris ELC Petition No. 7 of 2021 (Formerly Narok ELC Petition No. 3 of 2021) - Reference dated 19th August 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/21/eng@2026-01-19

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