Karanja v Martin p/a Wachungo Martin and Co Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3467 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court gave a client extra time to challenge an advocate's taxed legal fees, but she pays the costs for her delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant has given a plausible explanation for the delay warranting enlargement of time to file a reference out of the taxing officer's decision of 12 February 2025
- 2.Whether a stay of execution of the certificate of taxation should be granted
- 3.Whether a stay of proceedings in MCCC/E046/2025 should be granted
Key legal issues
#Enlargement of time to file a reference out of a taxing officer's decision
The court enlarged time, finding the applicant had given a plausible explanation for the delay since she had pursued a prior application challenging the taxation which was dismissed on 22.10.2025, and filed the current application about a week thereafter
Order 11 Rule 4 of the Advocates Remuneration Order confers a discretion on the High Court to enlarge time even after expiry. The discretion is judicial and must be exercised on principle, considering length of and reasons for delay, substantial loss and prejudice. The applicant's account of pursuing a prior review and stay application dismissed on 22.10.2025, followed by this application within about a week, constituted a plausible explanation for the delay.
Stay of execution of the certificate of taxation
Stay of execution on costs granted for four months, the court holding that execution can still be halted even after judgment in the enforcement suit
The applicant's concern was execution of costs. Although judgment had been entered in the enforcement suit MCCC/E046/2025, the court reasoned that execution can nonetheless be halted. A four-month stay was granted to enable prosecution of the reference, with time enlarged for 14 days and the orders lapsing if the reference is not filed.
Legal principles established
#- The grant or refusal of an extension of time is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised in a princip manner in accordance with reason and justice
- In exercising discretion on extension of time, the court considers the length of and reasons for the delay, whether the applicant would suffer substantial loss, and the degree of prejudice
Court orders
#- 1.Time enlarged for the applicant to file a Reference within 14 days from the date of the Ruling, failing which the orders granted shall lapse
- 2.Order of stay of execution on costs granted for a period of 4 months
- 3.Costs of the miscellaneous suit borne by the Applicant in favour of the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 11 Rule 4 of the Advocates Remuneration Order - discretionary power of the High Court to enlarge time for filing a reference out of a taxing officer's decision
Relief refused
#Stay of proceedings pending hearing and determination of the application and the reference in MCCC/E046/2025
The court did not grant this prayer; it observed that even if judgment has been delivered in the enforcement suit, execution can still be halted, and limited relief to a stay of execution on costs only
Costs
The Costs of this miscellaneous suit shall be borne by the Applicant in favour of the Respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Time is hereby enlarged for the applicant to file a Reference within 14 days from the date of this Ruling failure to which the orders given herein shall lapse.
An order of stay of execution on costs is hereby granted for a period of 4 months.
The Costs of this miscellaneous suit shall be borne by the Applicant in favour of the Respondent.
The grant or refusal of an extension of time is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised, not subjectively or at whim or by rigid rule of thumb, but in a principled manner in accordance with reason and justice.
Issues in the judgment
#The date of delivery stated in the body of the ruling ('delivered on 12th February 2025' taxation and dates in 2025-2026) includes a judgment date of 3 June 2026, while the case number is E001 OF 2026 and the application dated 30.10.2025, creating internal date inconsistencies in the file numbering
The respondent's party name appears inconsistently within the judgment, once as 'WAICHUNGO MARTIN P/A WAICHUNGO MARTIN AND CO ADVOCATES' and once as 'WAICHUNGO MARTIN T/A WAICHUNGO MARTIN AND CO ADVOCATES'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karanja v Martin p/a Wachungo Martin and Co Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3467 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCL MISC NO. E001 OF 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3467/eng@2026-06-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.