keelc-2025-06332

3. Both counsels filed submissions in respect of the two applications. The court having considered the issues raised in both submissions distils the following issues for determination;Whether extension of time should be granted to Client/ Respondent to file the referenceWhether the court should enter Judgement on the Certificate of Costs 4. The Client/Respondent relies on the provisions of the Advocates Remuneration Order that stipulate as follows; 5. “ (1) Should any party object to the decision of taxing oficer, he may within fourteen days after the decision give notice in writing to the taxing oficer of the items of taxation to which he objects. (2) The taxing oficer shall forthwith record and forward to the objector the reasons for his decision on those items and the objector may within fourteen days from the receipt of the reasons apply to a judge by chamber summons, which shall be served on all the parties concerned, setting out the grounds of his objection (3) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the judge upon any objection referred to such judge under subsection (2) may, with the leave of the judge but not otherwise, appeal to the Court of Appeal. (4) The High Court shall have power in its discretion by order to enlarge the time fixed by subparagraph (1) or subparagraph (2) far the taking of any step; application for such an order may be made by chamber summons upon giving to every other interested party not less than three clear days’ notice in writing or as the Court may direct, and may be so made notwithstanding that the time sought to be enlarged may have already expired.” In the case of Edith Gichungu Koine vs Stephen Njagi Thoithi [2014] eKLR Odek JJA stated: “ Nevertheless, it ought to be guided by consideration of factors stated in many previous decisions of this court including, but not limited to, the period of delay, the reasons for the delay, the degree of prejudice to Respondent if the application is granted, and whether the matter raises issues of public importance, amongst others.” 6. In the instant case the delay is a period of approximately six months. However the period of delay does not provide automatic justification for extension. The applicant has a responsibility to give congent reasons for the failure to comply with the time lines. This was succinctly stated by the Supreme Court in the case of County Executive of Kisumu vs County Government of Kisumu & 8 others (2017) eKLR where the Supreme Court of Kenya held thus: “ (23) It is trite law that in an application for extension of time, the whole period of delay should be declared and explained satisfactorily to the Court. Further, this court has settled the principles that are to guide it in the exercise of its discretion to extend time in the Nicholas Salat case to which all the parties herein have relied upon. The Court delineated the following as; “The under-lying principles that a Court should consider in exercise of such discretion: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6332/eng@2025-05-08 2

page 2 of 4

1. Extension of time is not a right of party, It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court; 2. A party who seeks for extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court; 3. Whether the court should exercise the discretion to extend time, is a consideration to be made on a case-to-case basis; 4. Whether there is a reasonable reason for the delay. The delay should be explained to the satisfaction of the Court; 5. Whether there will be any prejudice sufiered by the Respondents if the extension is granted; 6. Whether the application has been brought with undue delay; and 7. Whether in certain cases, like election petitions, public interest should be a consideration for extending time.” 7. The reasons given by the Client/ Applicant for the failure to file the reference is found in the supporting afidavit. The essence of the reasons appears to be generally that there was delay in accessing the Ruling on taxation and the reasons for taxation. This explanation is discounted by the uncontroverted Replying afidavit of the Advocate/ Respondent in which he details in paragraph 7 that the ruling of the Taxing Master was uploaded on the Judiciary e-filing on 19th July, 2024 and was easily accessible to the parties contrary to the Respondents/Applicants allegation. He attaches a screenshot to confirm this. 8. The efiect of this explanation is that the Client/ Respondent has not given the court any suficient reasons for failing to file the reference. The power to extend time is a discretionary remedy which must be exercised in a manner that is explainable and supported by facts which it is the duty of parties to honestly place before the court for consideration. If there are no reasons and there was human error this should be disclosed and the court called upon to exercise its inherent power to do justice. However in this case general statements which placed blame upon the Taxing master were made with no specific details. I find that no good reasons have been given for failing to meet the time lines for filing the reference. 9. On the application by the Advocate/ Client, Section 51 (2) provides; “ The certificate of the Taxing Oficer by whom any bill has been taxed shall, unless it is set aside or altered by the Court, be final as to the amount of the costs covered thereby, and the Court may make such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit, including, in a case where the retainer is not disputed, an order that Judgement be entered for the sum certified to be due with costs” 10. Judgement on costs is therefore subject to the following conditions;A certificate of the taxing oficer by whom the bill was taxed has been issuedThe said certificate of taxation has not been set aside or altered by the court and the retainer is not disputed. 11. In the instant case there is a certificate of taxation dated 19th August 2024. In view of my findings on the application dated 19th November 2024 there is no pending reference. Retainer is also not disputed. In the circumstances I find that the application is merited. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6332/eng@2025-05-08 3

page 3 of 4

12. On the question of interest, backdated to 8th August 2021, the courts have previously held that where the advocate has not proved that he brought up the issue of costs with his client at the point of submitting the bill of costs, then he fails to satisfy the conditions as set out in Rule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order which stipulates that: “ An advocate may charge interest at 14% per annum on his disbursements and costs, whether by scale or otherwise, from the expiry to one month from the delivery of his bill to the client, providing such claim for interest is raised before the amount has been paid or tendered in full.” 13. In the case of Kerongo & Company Advocates vs Africa Assurance Merchant Co. Limited [2019] eKLR the court held; “ An advocate who does not provide proof that he had raised the issue of interest before the amount in the Bill of Costs has been paid or tendered in full will not be paid the interest chargeable under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.” I am persuaded by this agreement. 14. In the instant case, the advocate has not shown in his supporting afidavit that he raised the issue of interest before the bill of costs was taxed. As such I will only award interest from date of the Judgement. 15. In the end the court issues the following orders in respect of the two applications; a. The Client/ Respondents application dated 11th October 2024 is dismissed. b. Judgement on costs is entered for the sum of Kshs 6,856,028. c. Interest at 14% from the date of Judgement. RULING SIGNED DATED AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 8TH DAY OF MAY, 2025. JUDY OMANGE JUDGE In the presence of; Court Assistant Catherine Mr. Mbugua for Advocate Mr. Martin for Respondent https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6332/eng@2025-05-08 4

page 4 of 4