Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutKakamega ELC Misc. Application No. E002 of 2025 (Reference by Chamber Summons dated 5th December 2025)· [2026] KEELC 3906 (KLR)

Kundu t/a KN Wesutsa & Co Advocates v Ambulwa (Miscellaneous Application E085 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3906 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
16 June 2026
2,178 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court struck out an advocate's fee challenge because the work came from a succession case, which the Environment and Land Court cannot handle.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant advocate filed a reference by chamber summons dated 5th December 2025 challenging the taxing officer's decision of 21st November 2025 in Kakamega ELC Misc. Application No. E002 of 2025, seeking to set aside the taxation of his advocate-client bill of costs, to have instruction fees reassessed, and to set aside findings that Kshs. 50,000/= paid between 2021 and 2023 was adequate remuneration for preparing a Memorandum of Understanding dated 5th January 2024 concerning disposal of parcel No. Kakamega Municipality/Block 1/101 valued at Kshs. 36,000,000/=. He argued the instructions extended beyond the MOU to pursuing discharge of charge, and that the taxing officer erred in principle. The 1st respondent filed a preliminary objection on the 14-day notice requirement under paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order and a replying affidavit maintaining the Kshs. 50,000/= was adequate. The court framed two issues: its jurisdiction and whether there was material justifying interference. Tracing the history, it found the MOU and discharge of charge were prepared pursuant to consents and orders in Kakamega HC Succession Cause No. E013 of 2021, a succession matter outside the court's jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) and section 13 of the ELC Act, notwithstanding that the estate comprised land. Holding it lacked jurisdiction, the court declined to consider the Rule 11 question, struck out the chamber summons with costs to the respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the ELC over a reference on a bill of costs arising from a succession matter

Holding

The court lacks jurisdiction; the drafting of the MOU and discharge of charge was done pursuant to orders in Kakamega HC Succession Cause No. E013 of 2021, a succession matter outside Article 162(2)(b) and section 13 of the ELC Act.

Reasoning

The court traced the history: the respondents were administrators in the succession cause; a consent dated 30th September 2024 required preparation of a discharge of charge for parcel Kakamega Municipality Block 1/101. The MOU of 5th January 2024 was made pursuant to court orders directing disposal of the estate. The joinder of the Land Registrar and KCB was for implementing the confirmed grant, not because it was a land case. Jurisdiction, once absent, compels the court to down its tools.

p. 4
02

Whether the preliminary objection on the 14-day notice under paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order needed determination

Holding

Not determined, because the court lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the reference at all.

Reasoning

The court held that once it found no jurisdiction, it could not proceed to determine whether the reference was filed in breach of Rule 11's notice requirement. The jurisdictional question was resolved first and dispositive of the whole application.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The Environment and Land Court has no jurisdiction to determine references arising from taxation of bills of costs in respect of succession matters, even where the estate in issue is land.
  • The filing of the bill of costs in the Environment and Land Court does not confer jurisdiction where the underlying instructions relate to a succession matter.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Chamber summons dated 5th December 2025 is struck out
  2. 2.Costs of the reference awarded to the respondents
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya as read with section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kundu t/a KN Wesutsa & Co Advocates v Ambulwa (Miscellaneous Application E085 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3906 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kakamega ELC Misc. Application No. E002 of 2025 (Reference by Chamber Summons dated 5th December 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3906/eng@2026-06-16

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