Prof Tom Ojienda & Associates v County Government of Nairobi (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E115 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1133 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court allowed Prof. Ojienda's firm to appeal a decision on its legal fees, ruling that a four-month wait to seek permission was not too long.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether leave should be granted to appeal against the ruling dismissing the reference on taxation
Leave was granted; the applicant established arguable grounds and the delay of about 4 months was not unreasonable
The court considered delay and prospects of success. Though the application came 4 months after the ruling, the judge found the delay neither unreasonable nor inordinate. On merits, the argument that the uncontested valuation report should have formed the basis of calculating instruction fees was a matter capable of being argued before the Court of Appeal, so a realistic possibility of success existed.
Whether the delay of approximately four months in filing the application was excusable
The delay was not unreasonable or inordinate
Although the ruling was delivered on 28th April, 2025 and the application dated 28th August, 2025, the court noted that no specific filing period is prescribed under the Advocates Remuneration Order for leave applications, only that they be made without unreasonable delay. On the facts, four months was within the acceptable range and did not disqualify the application.
Whether the intended appeal had a realistic possibility of success
The court found arguable points but declined to decide the ultimate merits
Applying the principles in Majanja Luseno and Onindo Onindo, the applicant argued that valuation reports were never contested and provided a definite basis for instruction fees. The court held this remained a matter for further argument at the Court of Appeal, which sufficed to demonstrate arguability without assessing ultimate merits.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court ruling on a reference from a taxing master's decision is not as of right but requires leave under Rule 11(3) of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
- Leave applications must be made without unreasonable delay, though no specific period is prescribed.
Court orders
#- 1.The client/applicant is hereby granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the whole of the ruling of this court delivered on 28th April, 2025.
- 2.No orders as to costs.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya (ruling of this court)
- Chamber summons dated 13th February, 2025 (reference against taxation ruling of 3rd February, 2025)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(3) of the Advocates Remuneration Order; Article 159(2) of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Prof Tom Ojienda & Associates v County Government of Nairobi (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E115 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1133 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 28th August, 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1133/eng@2026-02-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.