Kilonzo v Juma (Environment and Land Appeal 44 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 3175 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to extend time to challenge a taxed bill because the litigant never formally changed her advocates, so service on the old firm counted.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Extension of time to file a taxation objection and reference
The court has discretionary power under Order 11 Rule (4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order to enlarge time even after expiry, guided by the Salat principles (reasons for delay, prejudice, undue delay, etc.)
The court accepted jurisdiction under Order 11 Rule (4), applied the Supreme Court's Salat guidelines and the Court of Appeal's MSA v KMKA principles, and tested the respondent's explanation against the record. Since the respondent's former advocates were still properly on record and had been served, the reasons for the delay were not plausible and the discretion was exercised against extension.
Effect of failure to comply with Order 9 Rule 9 on service and the fairness claim
A litigant cannot change advocates post-judgment without leave of the court or written consent of the outgoing advocate; until that is done, the outgoing advocate remains on record for purposes of service
The court explained that Order 9 Rule 9 is designed to prevent litigants evading payment of previous advocates' fees and to inform the court and parties of a change. The record showed no such application or consent, so Stanley Nthiwa & Co. Advocates remained on record, and service of the BOC and taxation notice on them on 11 June 2024 was proper, defeating the respondent's fair-hearing complaint.
Whether the taxation ruling should be set aside and the bill re-taxed
Not determined; the court declined to reach the issue once extension of time was refused
The court found the extension application unmerited and held that its findings on the delay rendered determination of the second issue (setting aside the taxation ruling of 3 April 2025 and re-taxing the bill of costs dated 27 May 2024) unnecessary. The dismissal therefore disposed of the entire summons without consideration of the merits of the proposed objections.
Legal principles established
#- Post-judgment change of advocate or intention to act in person cannot be effected without a court order or the outgoing advocate's written consent, per Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- Where the advocate previously on record has never been properly replaced, service of the bill of costs and notice of taxation on that advocate is proper service
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons dated 19 June 2025 is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 11 Rule (4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order; Sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kilonzo v Juma (Environment and Land Appeal 44 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 3175 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3175/eng@2026-05-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.