Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2025] KEELRC 1533 (KLR)

Chaudhri & Associates v Lady Lori (Kenya) L (Miscellaneous Civil Application E157 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1533 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
22 May 2025
LNLINNET NDOLO
1,318 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court ruled that late objections to a taxed legal fee bill will only be heard with a credible excuse, so the client had to pay the advocate's fees.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the High Court at Nairobi (Linnet Ndolo J) determined two competing applications arising from the taxation of an Advocate/Client Bill of Costs. By a Chamber Summons dated 10th January 2024, the Client sought to set aside the Taxing Officer's determination of 3rd October 2023 on items 1, 2 and 3–55 of the Bill, together with leave to file a reference out of time. The Client attributed the delay to the alleged non-supply of reasons for taxation, despite filing a notice of objection and requesting reasons by letter dated 5th October 2023. The Advocate opposed, maintaining the taxation was fair, that the ruling itself contained reasons, and that the reference was time-barred under Rule 11(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The Advocate separately moved by Notice of Motion dated 3rd July 2024 for judgment of Kshs. 436,493.91 plus 14% interest from 10th November 2023, relying on the Certificate of Taxation. The court held that the Taxing Officer's detailed ruling contained reasons for each decision on the Bill, applying Vincent Kibiwott Rono v Abraham Kiprotich Chebet, so the Client could not complain of non-supply of reasons; nor was any credible evidence of follow-up adduced. No credible reason for the delay having been advanced, the Client's application was dismissed and the Advocate's application allowed, with costs of both applications to the Advocate.

Key legal issues

#
01

Extension of time to file a reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order

Holding

The Client's application for leave to file a reference out of time was dismissed because no credible reason for the delay was shown

Reasoning

Rule 11 prescribes a 14-day period to object and a further 14 days from receipt of reasons to file a reference. The Taxing Officer's ruling of 3rd October 2023 contained reasons for each decision on the Bill, so there was no basis to await further reasons. The Client's claim of following up on reasons was unsubstantiated, and the delay was unreasonable.

p. 4
02

Entitlement of an Advocate to judgment on taxed costs

Holding

Once the Bill was taxed and a Certificate of Taxation issued, and the Client's challenge failed, the Advocate's application for judgment was allowed

Reasoning

The Advocate sought judgment of Kshs. 436,493.91 plus 14% interest from 10th November 2023, relying on the Certificate of Taxation. With the Client's application dismissed, no impediment remained to entering judgment for the taxed fees.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a taxing officer's ruling contains adequate reasons for taxation on contested items, there is no need to seek further reasons
  • References filed outside the prescribed timelines ought not be entertained save for compelling reasons
  • The time limits for filing references against a taxation are mandatory

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Client's application dated 10th January 2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.The Advocate's application dated 3rd July 2024 is allowed
  3. 3.The Client will pay the costs of both applications

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates (Remuneration) OrderRule 11(1)-(3)
  • Advocates (Remuneration) OrderRule 7

Cases cited (3)

  • Vincent Kibiwott Rono v Abraham Kiprotich Chebet & another
    [2022] eKLR
  • Agarwal v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd
    [2019] eKLR
  • Republic v The Taxing Master of the High Court of Kenya
    [2018] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order (objection to a decision on taxation)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chaudhri & Associates v Lady Lori (Kenya) L (Miscellaneous Civil Application E157 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1533 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1533/eng@2025-05-22

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