Bundi v Wambu t/a Chador Auctioneers (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E036 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 987 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Thika Environment and Land Court gave a client a second chance after an advocate's mistake and threw out a KES 9.65 million taxation ruling that ignored a contract.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether application for the enlargement of time is merited
- 2.Whether the Taxing Master was right in the approach taken
- 3.Whether application for stay is merited
- 4.What reliefs should the Court issue
- 5.Who bears the costs of this application
Key legal issues
#Whether enlargement of time to file the appeal against the Taxation Ruling was merited
Yes. The 15-day delay was non-inordinate, blame lay with former Counsel, and the Applicant acted promptly on discovery.
The Court weighed the strict 7-day limit under Rule 55(5) of the Auctioneers Rules against Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. Relying on Salat v IEBC and Habo Agencies, it held extension is an equitable remedy for diligent parties, but found constructive notice through the CTS did not make the Applicant indolent given prompt change of Counsel and filing of the application.
Whether the Taxing Master's approach was right
No. The Taxing Officer may have ignored a binding service agreement dated 26/08/2022 and taxed items not in the Auctioneers Act Schedule, acting without jurisdiction.
Rule 55 of the Auctioneers Rules allows fees to be governed by contract rather than the Fourth Schedule. The Taxing Officer admitted eviction and demolition costs were not in the Schedule yet taxed them anyway. Applying Letshego and MacFoy, the Court found a prima facie jurisdictional error rendering the Ruling potentially a nullity.
Whether stay of execution was merited
Yes. Execution on a potentially null Ruling would cause substantial loss; the Respondent's demand for KES 9.65 million security was punitive.
Applying Order 42 Rule 6(2) and Kenya Shell v Kibiru, the Court held that while paying a lawful debt is not ordinarily substantial loss, executing a Ruling that ignored a binding contract would cause irreparable harm, particularly as the Respondent did not demonstrate ability to refund. A 10% deposit was imposed as a condition.
Legal principles established
#- A mistake of an Advocate should not be visited upon a litigant who acted promptly upon discovery; a 15-day delay is not inordinate
- Where a contract governs fees, a Taxing Officer who ignores it acts without jurisdiction and erred in principle
- Execution on a Ruling that is a jurisdictional nullity constitutes substantial loss
- A punitive security demand that ties up the suit sum effectively sells justice
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted for M/S KN Law LLP to come on record
- 2.Application for enlargement of time granted
- 3.Stay of execution of the Taxation Ruling of 20/03/2025 granted pending hearing and determination of the Appeal
- 4.Applicant to deposit KES 1,000,000 (10%) in a joint bank account with both Counsel as signatories within 30 days
- 5.In default of the deposit, stay to stand vacated and Respondent at liberty to proceed with execution
- 6.Taxation Ruling set aside in its entirety
- 7.Instant appeal admitted as duly filed and served upon payment of requisite fees
- 8.Respondent's Bill of Costs remitted for fresh taxation before a different Taxing Master, applying the rates agreed in the contract of 26/08/2022
- 9.Respondent to pay the Applicant the costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Taxing Master (subordinate court, Thika)
- Taxation Ruling dated 20 March 2025
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 79G and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act (extension of time and admission of appeal out of time); Articles 48, 50 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
a. Leave is hereby granted for M/S KN Law LLP to come on record.
b. The Application for enlargement of time is granted.
c. A Stay of Execution of the Taxation Ruling 20/03/2025 is hereby granted pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal.
f. The Taxation Ruling is set aside in its entirety.
h. The Respondent's Bill of Costs is remitted for fresh Taxation before a difierent Taxing Master, with a specific instruction to apply the rates agreed upon in the contract of 26/08/2022.
j. The Respondent shall pay the Applicant the costs of this application.
A litigant should not lose a multi-million-shilling claim because an Advocate failed to check a computer system (CTS).
In Letshego Kenya Limited v. Moiruri t/a Moco Auctioneers [supra], the High Court held that where a contract exists, the Taxing Master cannot resort to the statutory schedule.
Issues in the judgment
#Submissions dated 13/06/2025 and 4/07/2025 predate the court directions of 30/07/2025 on filing of submissions
Applicant's filing date of 04/04/2025 is stated as 15 days post-Ruling, but the Ruling was dated 20/03/2025, making it 15 days only if counted from the alleged notice date of 25/03/2025; the judgment also says the delay was 9 days from actual notice
Date of the Taxation Ruling is inconsistently given as 2/03/2025 and 20 March 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bundi v Wambu t/a Chador Auctioneers (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E036 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 987 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/987/eng@2026-02-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.