Chaudhri & Associates v Lady Lori (Kenya) Limited (Miscellaneous Civil Application E158 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1490 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to excuse a client's late challenge to taxed legal fees, letting the advocate collect the full Kshs. 284,373.60.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Extension of time to file a reference out of time under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Leave to file the reference out of time was refused because the Client gave no credible or substantiated reason for the delay; the delay was found to be unreasonable
The Taxing Officer's ruling of 3rd October 2023 already contained reasons for each decision on the Bill of Costs, so the Client could not claim the reasons were withheld. Apart from an unsubstantiated assertion of follow-up, no real effort to obtain reasons was evidenced. Following Agarwal v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd and Republic v The Taxing Master of the High Court of Kenya, the court held the timelines mandatory and dismissed the application.
The Advocate's entitlement to judgment on the taxed costs
The Advocate's Notice of Motion dated 3rd July 2024 seeking judgment in the sum of Kshs. 284,373.60 plus costs at 14% from 10th November 2023 until payment in full was allowed
Having failed to set aside or challenge the taxation, the Client remained liable for the taxed fees. The court found the Client's composite application strategy inadequate - it assumed extension of time would be granted as a matter of course and advanced no reasons for the exercise of discretion in its favour. The Advocate was consequently entitled to judgment on the certificate of taxation.
Legal principles established
#- Where a Taxing Officer's ruling contains adequate reasons for taxation on contested items, there is no need for a party to seek further reasons before filing a reference
- References filed outside the prescribed timelines under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order ought not to be entertained save for compelling reasons justifying the delay
- The time limits for filing references are mandatory and applications filed after expiry of the set period ought to be dismissed unless exceptional reasons for the delay are presented
Court orders
#- 1.The Client's application dated 10th January 2024 is dismissed
- 2.The Advocate's application dated 3rd July 2024 is allowed
- 3.The Client will pay the costs of both applications
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order - objection to a decision of a Taxing Officer; extension of time and judgment on taxed costs
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chaudhri & Associates v Lady Lori (Kenya) Limited (Miscellaneous Civil Application E158 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1490 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1490/eng@2025-05-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.