Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedMisc Application No E181 of 2022· [2025] KEELRC 1291 (KLR)

Onyango t/a Oscar & Associate Advocates v Kyengo (Miscellaneous Application E181 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1291 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
8 May 2025
2,397 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court turned a lawyer's taxed fee bill of Kshs. 366,341 into a judgment debt, rejecting the client's late attempt to challenge the taxation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi (Baari J) determines twin applications arising from the taxation of an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs dated 28th October 2022 in ELRCMISC/E181/2022 (Oscar Onyango T/A Oscar & Associate Advocates v Jenifier Mulee Kyengo). The client (applicant in the Chamber Summons dated 26th July 2024) sought enlargement of time to file a reference against the Deputy Registrar's ruling of 29th April 2024, a stay of execution, and setting aside of the taxation with a de novo taxation before another Deputy Registrar. The advocate (by Notice of Motion dated 16th May 2024) sought adoption of the Certificate of Taxation dated 3rd May 2024 for Kshs. 366,341.00 as judgment, with interest. The court framed three issues: enlargement of time, setting aside the ruling, and adoption of the certificate. On the first, the delay of about one month from when typed proceedings were ready was held not inordinate and time was enlarged. On the second, applying the Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara principle, the objection was held to be solely on quantum and the reference was dismissed in its entirety. On the third, applying Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act and Lubulellah & Associates v N.K. Brothers Limited, the court adopted the certificate as judgment with interest at court rates from the date of the order, and made no orders on costs. Judgment delivered at Nairobi on 8th May 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether time for filing the reference out of time should be enlarged

Holding

Yes; delay of about one month from availability of typed proceedings was not inordinate and reasons were sufficient.

Reasoning

Extension of time is discretionary, considering sufficiency of reasons, whether delay is excusable, its length and prejudice. The ruling was delivered 29th April 2024; typed proceedings were only ready on 7th June 2024 and the reference was dated and filed in July 2024. That one-month interval was not inordinate, and the advocate's contention that the reference was filed in September was contradicted by the record. In the interest of substantive justice, enlargement was merited.

p. 4
02

Whether the taxation ruling of 29th April 2024 should be set aside and the bill taxed de novo

Holding

No; the objection was solely on quantum and the taxing master gave reasons for each item, so the court would not interfere.

Reasoning

Applying Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara Advocates v Deposit Protection Fund Board, a judge will not interfere with a taxing officer's discretion absent error in principle. The directions to file further affidavits and submissions were only to enable determination of the reference and did not amount to new pleadings. The taxing master analysed each item and gave reasons; the applicant's complaint went only to quantum, which the taxing officer was particularly fitted to deal with.

p. 5
03

Whether the Certificate of Taxation should be adopted as judgment of the court

Holding

Yes; the reference having been dismissed and the ruling not set aside, Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act permitted entry of judgment.

Reasoning

Section 51(2) empowers the court to enter judgment for an advocate on taxed costs except where the certificate has been varied or set aside or where retainer is disputed. A certificate is not ordinarily adopted where a reference is pending or the ruling has been altered. Here the reference was dismissed and the ruling stood unaltered, so nothing barred entry of judgment for Kshs. 366,341.00 with interest.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time is discretionary and depends on sufficiency of reasons for delay, length of delay and prejudice to the other party.
  • A judge on a reference from taxation will not interfere with the taxing officer's discretion absent error in principle; pure questions of quantum are for the taxing officer.
  • Under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, judgment may be entered for an advocate on taxed costs where the certificate has not been varied or set aside and there is no dispute as to retainer.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Time for lodging and filing the Reference dated 26th July, 2024 enlarged and the Reference deemed properly on record.
  2. 2.The Chamber Summons application dated 26th July, 2024, insofar as it sought to set aside the taxation, dismissed in its entirety.
  3. 3.The Certificate of Taxation dated 3rd May, 2024 certified in the sum of Kshs. 366,341.00 adopted as a judgment of the court.
  4. 4.Interest to accrue from the sum taxed at court rates from the date of the order until paid in full.
  5. 5.No orders on costs.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) OrderRule 11(1); Rule 11
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 13(1)(a)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1A; Section 51
  • Advocates ActSection 51(2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Owiti, Otieno & Ragot Advocates v. County Government of Migori
    (2022) eKLR
  • Kipkorir, Titoo & Kiara Advocates vs Deposit Protection Fund Board Nairobi
    [2005] eKLR
  • Lubulellah & Associates vs N.K. Brothers Limited
    (2014) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration (Amendment) Order; Order 21 Rule 13(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A and 51 of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Onyango t/a Oscar & Associate Advocates v Kyengo (Miscellaneous Application E181 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1291 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Misc Application No E181 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1291/eng@2025-05-08

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