Mwangi v Njuguna (Environment and Land Case 415 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 2360 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Nyeri dismissed a litigant's bid to file a late costs reference, ruling that a two-year unexplained delay and an improperly appointed advocate left no basis for leniency.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the inordinate delay of over two years in filing the reference should be excused
The delay was inordinate and not sufficiently explained; the applicant was jolted into action only by a Notice to Show Cause.
The ruling was delivered on July 12, 2023 and the application filed on August 19, 2025. The applicant blamed his former counsel, but the court held he could not have waited two years without instructing new counsel or otherwise acting. Applying the Salat principles, a party seeking extension must lay a basis and explain the delay to the court's satisfaction, which was not done here.
Whether the applicant's current advocates were properly on record under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules
The advocates were not properly on record; the notice of intention to act in person and the notice of appointment of the incoming firm were not filed with court order or consent of the outgoing firm.
The applicant served a Notice of Intent to Act in Person on July 6, 2023 and a notice of withdrawal on August 4, 2023, but there was no evidence these were effected by court order or consent of Waiganjo Gichuki & Co. Advocates as mandated. The same deficiency applied to the notice of appointment of Bikundo Associates & Co. Advocates, so the firm filing the application was improperly on record.
Whether the court had power to enlarge time for filing a reference against a taxing master's ruling
Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order confers that power, but the applicant did not invoke it, instead relying on Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The court noted paragraph 11(1) allows fourteen days to object to a taxing officer's decision and paragraph 11(4) empowers the High Court to enlarge that time by chamber summons. The applicant, however, relied on Order 50 Rule 6 and other general provisions, which the court considered in exercising its discretion on a case-by-case basis.
Legal principles established
#- Every litigant has a duty to follow up on their case and cannot blame all inadvertence on their counsel
- Extension of time is an equitable remedy, not a right, and the applicant must lay a basis and explain the delay
- A change of advocates or intention to act in person after judgment cannot be effected without an order of the court or consent as required by Order 9 Rule 9
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated August 19, 2025 is dismissed
- 2.The applicant to pay the costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 95 and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 59 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act (Cap 2); Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution; Order 50 Rule 6 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, "Mwangi v Njuguna (Environment and Land Case 415 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 2360 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Suit 415 of 2014 (Notice of Motion/Chamber Summons dated August 19, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2360/eng@2026-04-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.