Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutChamber Summons dated 17th December 2024· [2026] KEELC 1932 (KLR)

Sehmi v Sehmi & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 659 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 1932 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
19 March 2026
3,448 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a challenge to a taxed legal bill because the objection was filed late without asking for more time.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court (L. G. Kimani J) on the Plaintiff/Applicant's Reference by Chamber Summons dated 17th December 2024, challenging the decision of Senior Deputy Registrar Judith Omollo, delivered 17th September 2024, taxing the Respondents' bills of costs on re-taxation ordered after Justice Omange's ruling of 23rd May 2024. The Taxing Master applied Schedule 6 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014, adopting Kshs 13,292,266 in an escrow account as the value of the subject matter, awarding Kshs 392,107.32 (1st–3rd Respondents), Kshs 401,370.32 (4th Respondent) and Kshs 388,297.35 (5th Respondent). The Applicant complained of an arbitrary valuation, improper aggregation of figures pleaded, failure to distinguish causes of action, and the effect of the withdrawal of the suit. The 4th Respondent opposed on competency grounds: the notice of objection was filed on 23rd October 2024, over a month after the ruling, contrary to Rule 11(1), and no extension of time was sought under Rule 11(4). The court held that time runs from the date of the ruling, not receipt of it; that enlargement of time requires a proper application supported by a satisfactory explanation (citing Salat); and that procedure is substantive (citing Mwicigi). Finding no extension application and no satisfactory explanation, the court struck out the reference as procedurally defective and incompetent, declined to address the merits, and awarded the Respondent the costs of the reference.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competency of the reference for non-compliance with Rule 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Holding

The notice of objection was filed over a month after the taxation ruling, outside the 14-day period, and no application for extension of time was made; the reference was therefore struck out as incompetent

Reasoning

Rule 11(1) requires a notice of objection within fourteen days of the taxing officer's decision. The Applicant filed on 23rd October 2024 against a ruling delivered 17th September 2024, and did not seek enlargement of time under Rule 11(4) with a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Citing Salat and Mwicigi, the court held timelines under the rules are substantive, equity aids the vigilant, and the defective notice rendered the reference invalid.

p. 7
02

Whether the court should address the merits of the taxation complaints

Holding

No; having found the reference incompetent, the court declined to make findings on the merits

Reasoning

The court held that a finding of incompetence disposes of the reference without any need to consider the alleged errors of principle in the taxation, including the valuation of the subject matter and the treatment of instruction fees.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • The time for filing a notice of objection under Rule 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order runs from the date of the taxation ruling, and an out-of-time reference without an extension of time under Rule 11(4) is incompetent
  • Enlargement of time under Rule 11(4) must be sought through an appropriate application supported by a satisfactory explanation for the delay
  • Once a reference is found incompetent, the court need not consider its merits

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Applicant's Reference by way of the Chamber Summons dated 17th December 2024 is struck out for being incompetent due to the filing of the Notice of Objection and the Chamber Summons out of time
  2. 2.The Respondent shall have the costs of the reference
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order (reference against a Taxing Master's decision); Rule 11(4) on enlargement of time

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sehmi v Sehmi & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 659 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 1932 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons dated 17th December 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1932/eng@2026-03-19

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