AS Kuloba & Wangila Advocates v Walingo (Miscellaneous Application E011 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 2176 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Nakuru refused a client's late challenge to taxed legal fees, ruling that an unexplained, misleading excuse for delay cannot extend court deadlines.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the client should be granted leave to file a reference out of time
Leave refused. The sole explanation - counsel's illness - was discredited: counsel was in court on 3rd October 2023, the medical records showed treatment between 9th and 24th November 2023, and neither counsel filed an affidavit nor was it shown he was indispensable. The application was an afterthought following the notice of proclamation.
The court examined the medical records against the pleaded dates and found they covered a period over a month after the ruling, leaving the interval between the ruling and expiry of the 14-day period unexplained. The client also failed to show personal steps to pursue the matter and did not identify the items objected to. The court concluded the excuse was intended to mislead the court and defeat the advocate's taxed fees.
Whether stay of execution pending the intended reference should issue
Stay refused, as it was contingent on leave being granted, which failed.
Having found no basis to enlarge time, the anchor for the stay prayer disappeared. The court noted the application in any event contained no express prayer for stay pending the filing, hearing and determination of the reference; the temporary stay earlier granted had been by consent pending the inter-partes hearing of the application only.
Costs of the application and of the stayed execution
Costs to the advocate, summarily assessed at Kshs20,000/=, and the client to bear the costs of the execution that was stayed.
The application having been dismissed in its entirety, costs followed the event in favour of the advocate, who had been kept out of its taxed fees by an application the court found was made in bad faith to delay settlement.
Legal principles established
#- Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order donates to a judge discretion to enlarge the timelines in paragraph 11(1) and (2) upon application by chamber summons.
- An applicant for enlargement of time must give a truthful and substantiated explanation for the delay; illness of counsel must be evidenced and the client must show steps taken to instruct counsel.
- Unexplained delay is unreasonable and inordinate; statutory deadlines serve fair and just adjudication.
Court orders
#- 1.The chamber summons application by the client dated 23rd November, 2023 is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Costs of the application to the advocate, assessed at Kshs20,000/=
- 3.The client shall meet the costs of the execution that was stayed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 159 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "AS Kuloba & Wangila Advocates v Walingo (Miscellaneous Application E011 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 2176 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (chamber summons dated 24th November, 2023 arising from advocate/client bill of costs dated 17th May, 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2176/eng@2024-07-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.