Ruiru Njoroge & Associates v Kamau & another (Miscellaneous Civil Application E249 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8812 (KLR) (Civ) (28 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8812 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION E249 OF 2025 SIFUNA NIXON, J MAY 28, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: ADVOCATES ACT CAP 16. LAWS OF KENYA AND THE ADVOCATES REMUNERATION ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF: THE ADVOCATE-CLIENT BILL OF COSTS BETWEEN RUIRU NJOROGE & ASSOCIATES ..................................................... APPLICANT AND EMMANUEL KIMANI KAMAU ................................................. 1ST RESPONDENT EDWARD NDIRANGU ................................................................ 2ND RESPONDENT RULING 1. This Application is by these two Clients Emmanuel Kimani Kamau and Edward Ndirangu. It is for leave to file a Taxation Reference out of time, against the Taxation Ruling delivered by Hon. E. Wambo (Taxing Officer) on 29th November 2024. The Application which is dated 3rd July 2025, was canvassed by way of written submissions. I have read the submissions filed by each party. Determination 2. Taxation References are governed by the Advocates Remuneration Order. To be specific, Paragraph 11 of the Order; which sets strict timelines and a rigid procedure. Both of which should be strictly complied with by any party which being aggrieved by a Taxation Decision, has chosen to file a Reference. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8812/eng@2026-05-28 1
page 1 of 3
3. The Process starts with the aggrieved party notifying Taxing Officer in writing, that it is objecting to the decision, and requesting that it be supplied with reasons for the decision. The Taxing Officer may supply the reasons, or reply that the reasons are in the ruling that was delivered- in the taxation decision itself. Thereafter the party files a Reference strictly within the strict timelines prescribed in Paragraph 11 of the Order. 4. In this particular case, after the Bill was taxed and a Taxation Decision delivered, the two clients went into slumber until later after a Certificate of Taxation had been issued, and the Advocate had filed an Application under Section 51 (2) of the Advocates Act (Cap 16 Laws of Kenya) seeking judgment and a decree in terms of the Certificate. 5. That is when they rushed to court, seeking leave to file a Reference out of the prescribed time. This being clearly an after-thought and a bid to clutch on any straw, to disrupt and scuttle the process of obtaining judgment on a Certificate of Taxation. 6. Which is in itself supposed to be a non-contentious one except where instructions or retainer are contested, or the Certificate in whose terms judgment is sought, has been subsequently set aside or varied. 7. On this alone, this Application should fail. However, let me further interrogate its merits. On an Application for leave to enlarge time or to file out of time, it is now settled law that a court will consider four primary issues: a. The length of the delay; b. The explanation or reasons given for the delay; c. The prejudice the respondent is likely to suffer, if the leave is granted; and d. Whether there is any public interest in the matter. 8. As for the period of delay, the taxation decision was rendered on 19th December 2024, and this Application for leave to file a Reference out of time, was filed some time in July 2025. Which was a period of over six months and a delay of almost six months outside the period that Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order has prescribed for filing references. 9. That is a long and prolonged delay. As for the explanation and reasons given for the delay, these two Clients have explained that the delay was as a result of their belief that there was a Fee Agreement by which the fee balance was less than the amount at which the bill was taxed. 10. Such presupposition and belief is misplaced, and contrary to the position that a Certificate of Taxation is final. According to which, any contestation as to the fees owed ought to have been raised during the Taxation of the Bill of Costs; and not after the Taxation Decision has been delivered, and a Certificate of Taxation issued. 11. In Lubulellah & Associates Advocates v. N. K. Brothers LTD [2014] KEHC 8685 (KLR),the court stated that once a Taxing Officer has taxed costs, issued a Certificate of Taxation, and there is no reference against the Taxation Decision, and the same has neither been set aside nor varied, no other action would be required from the court, except to enter judgment. 12. The reasons that this Application has given for the delay, were excuses that are not legally sufficient to support leave for enlargement of time or leave to file out of time. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8812/eng@2026-05-28 2
page 2 of 3
13. As to prejudice to the Advocate, it is a fact that the Advocate represented these Clients several years ago and has been waiting for his costs. The costs having been taxed, and the same not having been set aside or varied his fees along, he will indeed suffer prejudice and a longer wait, if his costs having been taxed and the Certificate having not been set aside or varied, the Clients would be granted leave to turn the clock backwards by filing a reference out of the time prescribed in the Advocates Remuneration Order. 14. For the aforegoing reasons, leave to file a Reference out of time is declined, and this Application is accordingly dismissed with costs. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIRTUALLY ON THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 2026. PROF (DR) NIXON SIFUNA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8812/eng@2026-05-28 3
page 3 of 3