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 OutChamber Summons dated 19th December 2024 (Reference from Taxing Officer's Ruling of 10th September 2024)· [2026] KEELC 817 (KLR)

Nova Holdings Limited & another v County Government of Mombasa & 2 others (Constitutional Petition 52 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 817 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
19 February 2026
JOJ.O. Olola
1,502 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 High Court in Mombasa struck out Mombasa County's challenge to a Kshs. 37.7 million legal costs award because it was filed far too late.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling by J.O. Olola, Judge of the High Court at Mombasa, on a Reference by way of Chamber Summons dated 19th December 2024 brought by the County Government of Mombasa and its Executive Committee Member for Land, Housing and Physical Planning. They sought to set aside the decision of the Taxing Officer (Hon. Nyariki, DR) of 10th September 2024, which allowed the Petitioners' Bill of Costs dated 7th June 2024 at Kshs. 37,734,736.66, contending that the instruction fee of Kshs. 28,250,000 under item 1 was so exorbitant as to amount to an error in principle. The Petitioners, Nova Holdings Limited and Ashok Labshanker Doshi, opposed through a preliminary objection and replying affidavit, arguing that the Reference was filed three months outside the fourteen-day period prescribed by Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014. The court noted that although the Respondents lodged a notice of objection on 20th September 2024 asking for reasons, the Deputy Registrar never responded, but the reasons for the taxation were already contained in the ruling itself. Relying on Evans Thiga Gaturu v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited, the court held that where reasons appear on the face of the decision, waiting for further reasons does not extend the filing period, and a reference filed beyond fourteen days is incompetent. As the Respondents had neither filed in time nor sought enlargement of time, the Chamber Summons was struck out as incompetent and misconceived, with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Timeliness of the Reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014

Holding

The Reference filed on 19th December 2024, some three months after the taxing decision of 10th September 2024, was out of time and incompetent

Reasoning

The respondents lodged a notice of objection on 20th September 2024 seeking reasons, which the Deputy Registrar did not provide. However, the reasons were already contained in the taxing ruling itself. Following Odunga J in Evans Thiga Gaturu, where reasons appear on the face of the decision, waiting for further reasons does not extend time, and a reference filed beyond 14 days is incompetent. The respondents neither filed within time nor sought enlargement of time.

p. 4
02

Whether the Taxing Officer erred in principle in assessing instruction fees of Kshs. 28,250,000

Holding

The court did not determine this issue because the Reference was struck out as incompetent, though it observed the fee appeared taxed on the higher side

Reasoning

The court acknowledged that interference is warranted only for errors in principle, not questions of quantum. It noted agreement with the respondents that the instruction fee appeared high, but since the Reference was incompetent for late filing, the merits were not reached and the application was struck out with no order as to costs.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A judge on a reference will not interfere with a Taxing Officer's discretion unless the Taxing Officer erred in principle; questions of quantum are for the taxing officer.
  • Where reasons are contained on the face of the taxing officer's decision, filing the reference more than 14 days after delivery renders the reference incompetent.
  • A party seeking to file a reference out of time must first seek enlargement of time.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Chamber Summons dated 19th December 2024 is struck out as incompetent and misconceived
  2. 2.No order as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Reference under Paragraph 11(1) and (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nova Holdings Limited & another v County Government of Mombasa & 2 others (Constitutional Petition 52 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 817 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons dated 19th December 2024 (Reference from Taxing Officer's Ruling of 10th September 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/817/eng@2026-02-19

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