Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially Allowednot stated in judgment (chamber summons dated 8th July, 2025)· [2026] KEELC 1527 (KLR)

Ramji & 2 others v Mombasa Cement & another (Environment and Land Case 365 of 2010) [2026] KEELC 1527 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
17 March 2026
MCMBOGO C.G.
1,879 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court gave a party one more month's grace to challenge a Kshs 3.1 million costs ruling, because a technical glitch, not negligence, caused the delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 2nd defendant/applicant filed a chamber summons dated 8th July 2025 under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, seeking enlargement of time to file a reference against the taxing officer's ruling of 5th June 2025, which taxed the plaintiffs' party and party bill of costs at Kshs.3,148,626.66. The applicant explained that although the ruling was uploaded on the Case Tracking System on the day of delivery, it could not be opened from their end, delaying the filing of the objection and request for reasons dated 13th June 2025. The applicant contended that the taxing master erred in principle by failing to use the transfer consideration of Kshs.6,391,365.00 as the value of the subject matter for instruction fees under Schedule 6A of the 2009 Remuneration Order. The plaintiffs opposed, arguing the delay was unexplained, no attempt was made to seek assistance from the registry, the suit had taken over 16 years, and mere dissatisfaction with the award disclosed no error of principle. The court applied the principles in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC. Finding the one-month delay not inordinate and the CTS access problem excusable - while noting the applicant should have contacted the registry - the court exercised its discretion in the applicant's favour. It granted leave to file the reference out of time, directed filing and service within 14 days, stayed execution of the taxing master's ruling pending the reference, and ordered that the costs of the application abide the outcome of the reference.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court should enlarge time for filing a reference against the taxing officer's ruling of 5th June 2025

Holding

The application was allowed: the delay of about one month was not inordinate and the reason - inability to access the ruling on the CTS platform - was excusable.

Reasoning

Applying the Salat principles, the court weighed length of delay, explanation and prejudice. The ruling was posted on the CTS on the day of delivery; the applicant's inability to download it was attributed possibly to network shortage. Though the applicant should have contacted the registry for assistance and did not, the court found the delay of one month not lengthy and excusable, and exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, granting leave, directing filing within 14 days, and staying execution of the taxation ruling pending the reference.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time is a discretionary, equitable remedy requiring the applicant to lay a basis and explain any delay.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 2nd defendant/applicant is granted leave to file the reference out of time.
  2. 2.The said reference to be filed and served within 14 days from the date of this ruling.
  3. 3.There shall be stay of execution of the taxing master's ruling dated 5th June, 2025 pending the hearing and determination of the reference.
  4. 4.The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the reference.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B and 3A
  • Advocates (Remuneration) OrderParagraph 11(1), (2) and (4); Paragraph I(b) of Schedule 6A

Cases cited (2)

  • Peter Julius Njoroge v Fidelity Commercial Bank Limited & another
    [2018] KEHC 6374 (KLR)
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC and 7 Others
    Sup Ct. Application 16 of 2014
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Paragraph 11(1), (2) and (4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ramji & 2 others v Mombasa Cement & another (Environment and Land Case 365 of 2010) [2026] KEELC 1527 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). not stated in judgment (chamber summons dated 8th July, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1527/eng@2026-03-17

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