Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KEELC 1434 (KLR)

Ngungu v China Road & Bridge Corporation & another (Environment and Land Case 378 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 1434 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
12 March 2026
EOE. O. Obaga
1,702 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

#

Kenya's High Court refused to extend time to challenge a taxed advocate-client bill because the applicant waited nearly two years without a credible excuse.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff/Applicant moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 16th June 2025 seeking enlargement of time to file a reference against the Taxing Master's ruling of 17th July 2023, stay of execution of that ruling, and an order compelling the 2nd Respondent's advocates to release the death certificate of the deceased 2nd Defendant. The application was supported by the affidavit of Margaret Mwikali Ngungu, who explained that the suit had been dismissed on 24th November 2022 with each party bearing its own costs, yet the 2nd Defendant's bill of costs was taxed at Kshs. 235,965/= and execution by proclamation and attachment was under way. She attributed the delay to the belief that she could not challenge the taxation while the deceased 2nd Defendant had not been substituted by his lawful beneficiaries, and offered security. The 2nd Respondent, through counsel Naomi M. Mutinda, opposed the application, pointing out that the suit against the 2nd Defendant had been withdrawn in February 2022, that the issues raised had been dealt with in a ruling of 24th April 2024 with no appeal preferred, and that the delay of one year and eleven months was inordinate and unexplained, making the application a delaying tactic. The court framed a single issue: whether the Applicant had demonstrated merit in the application for enlargement of time. Relying on Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order and the principles in Leo Sila Mutiso and Salat, the court held the explanation implausible because the deceased died on 6th January 2025, long after the reference deadline of about 14th August 2023, and the Applicant had participated in interim litigation. The delay of about one year and ten months was unexplained; the application was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant was entitled to enlargement of time to file a reference against the Taxing Master's ruling

Holding

The application was dismissed because the delay of about one year and ten months was inordinate and unexplained

Reasoning

Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order empowers the court to enlarge time even where it has expired. Applying the Leo Sila Mutiso and Salat principles, the court examined the length of and reason for the delay. The Applicant's explanation - that she awaited substitution of the deceased 2nd Defendant - was implausible because the deceased died on 6th January 2025, long after the 14th August 2023 deadline, and she had participated in litigation in the interim. The delay was therefore not satisfactorily explained and no sufficient cause was shown.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The court has discretion under Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order to enlarge time for filing a reference even where time has expired, but that discretion must be exercised judiciously having regard to the length of and reason for the delay, the chances of the reference succeeding and prejudice to the respondent

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 16th June 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the 2nd Respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159 of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ngungu v China Road & Bridge Corporation & another (Environment and Land Case 378 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 1434 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1434/eng@2026-03-12

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