Non-Governmental Organizations Coordination Board v EG & 5 others
The bottom line
#Court grants extension of time and stay of execution pending challenge to taxation ruling.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court allowed a statutory body to file a late challenge against a costs decision, because its legal manager was sick. The court also stopped the auction of its property until the challenge is heard. The court said the delay was reasonable and the challenge raised serious issues about court rules. It refused to treat documents filed before permission as valid.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant should be granted leave and enlargement of time to file a reference against the decision of the Registrar on taxation of costs dated 9 June 2023.
- 2.Whether the execution proceedings commenced by the 1st respondent should be stayed pending the hearing and determination of the reference.
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient reason for the delay in filing the reference within the prescribed 7 days.
The delay was satisfactorily explained by the applicant's legal affairs manager being indisposed and out of office for 5 days, supported by a sick-off form.
The court noted that the taxation ruling was delivered on 9 June 2023, requiring the reference by 16 June 2023. The applicant attributed the delay to the legal manager's illness, attaching a sick-off form dated 12 June 2023. The court found this reason plausible and satisfactory, noting the application was brought without undue delay and no prejudice was shown by the respondent.
Whether the applicant satisfied the principles for grant of stay of execution pending the reference.
The applicant satisfied all three principles: the intended reference is arguable, the execution would render it nugatory, and public interest favours the stay.
The court found the applicant's grievances regarding the taxation ruling arguable, including that the bill of costs and decree were lodged contrary to rule 29 of the Supreme Court Rules. It noted that imminent execution by auctioneers would render the reference nugatory. Finally, because the applicant is a statutory body funded by public coffers, the court held it was in the public interest to grant the stay.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking extension of time must explain the delay to the court's satisfaction.
- A court cannot treat documents filed before leave is granted as properly filed.
- For a stay of execution, the applicant must show an arguable case, risk of nugatory outcome, and public interest.
- Illness of a key legal officer can be a plausible reason for delay.
- No prejudice shown by the opposing party favours granting extension of time.
- Public interest in protecting public funds supports a stay for statutory bodies.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave be and is hereby granted to the applicant to file and serve the reference against the decision of the Deputy Registrar on taxation of costs dated 9 June 2023 within 7 days of delivery of this ruling.
- 2.An order staying the execution of the order of the Deputy Registrar of this court dated 9 June 2023 commenced by the 1st respondent, including an order restraining the 1st respondent and Zasha Auctioneers, their agents and/or employees, and/or any person acting under their instructions or directions from selling, dealing, interfering, alienating or disposing of any of the applicant’s property and/or household equipment be and is hereby issued pending the determination of the reference on taxation.
- 3.Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the reference on taxation.
- 4.We direct that the file be placed before the Deputy Registrar of the court for the purposes of issuing directions on the filing of the reference on taxation and the subsequent exchange of submissions.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Supreme Court of Kenya (Deputy Registrar)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Prayer that the reference filed herein be deemed as properly filed
The court held that it is presumptive and inappropriate to file a document out of time and then seek the court to extend time; the proper course is to file and serve the reference after leave is granted.
Costs
Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the reference on taxation.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Leave be and is hereby granted to the applicant to file and serve the reference against the decision of the Deputy Registrar on taxation of costs dated 9 June 2023 within 7 days of delivery of this ruling.
An order staying the execution of the order of the Deputy Registrar of this court dated 9 June 2023 commenced by the 1st respondent, including an order restraining the 1st respondent and Zasha Auctioneers, their agents and/or employees, and/or any person acting under their instructions or directions from selling, dealing, interfering, alienating or disposing of any of the applicant’s property and/or household equipment be and is hereby issued pending the determination of the reference on taxation.
Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the reference on taxation.
Based on this averment and evidence, we hold the view that the reason for the delay is plausible and satisfactory, in addition to the fact that the instant motion was brought without undue delay and the respondents have not shown any prejudice they stand to suffer if time sought is granted.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Procedure for extension and stay
When filing a reference out of time, always attach evidence explaining the delay (e.g., medical notes). Do not file the reference before obtaining leave; the court will not 'deem' it valid. For a stay, clearly argue that execution would render the reference useless and that public interest (e.g., public funds) supports the stay.
Dealing with statutory bodies on costs
If you win costs against a government body, be aware they may delay challenging the taxation. The court may grant them extra time if they show a reasonable excuse. Also, execution (e.g., auction) may be stayed if they raise arguable issues about the costs order. This can delay your recovery.
Challenging a costs decision
If you miss the 7-day deadline to challenge a taxation ruling, you can ask the court for more time. You must explain the delay convincingly (e.g., illness). The court may also stop any enforcement (like auction) while your challenge is heard, especially if the other side is a public body.
Frequently asked questions
#What is extension of time in Kenyan courts?+
Extension of time is when a court allows a party to do something after the deadline has passed. In Kenya, you must explain the delay to the court's satisfaction. The court considers the length of delay, reason, and prejudice to the other side.
How to challenge a taxation ruling in Kenya?+
You must file a reference within 7 days of the ruling. If you miss that deadline, you can apply for leave and extension of time. The court will assess your reason for delay. You cannot file the reference before getting leave.
What is a stay of execution in Kenya?+
A stay of execution stops enforcement of a court order (like auction of property) while a challenge is pending. To get a stay, you must show an arguable case, that execution would make the challenge useless, and that public interest supports the stay.
Can a court deem documents filed out of time as proper in Kenya?+
No. The Supreme Court in this case said it cannot 'sanitize' documents filed before leave is granted. You must first get permission to file out of time, then file the document after leave is given.
Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Intercountries Importers and Exporters Ltd v Teleposta Pension Scheme Registered Trustees & 5 others[2026] KESC 49 (KLR)3 Jul 2026
- Sehmi & another v Tarabana Company Ltd & 5 others[2026] KESC 15 (KLR)30 Jan 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Non-Governmental Organizations Coordination Board v EG & 5 others", Case Analysis (2023). Petition (Application) 16 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2023/78/eng@2023-09-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.