Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Appeal No. 32 of 2016 (application dated 3rd December 2024)

Chege Kamau Advocates v County Government of Bomet (Civil Application E112 of 2024) [2025] KECA 836 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
15 May 2025
GOG. V. Odunga
962 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal dismissed an application to file a taxation reference out of time, ruling it unnecessary because the applicant claimed he had already objected within the deadline.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a single-judge application in the Court of Appeal at Nakuru arising from a ruling of the Deputy Registrar, Hon. Lina Akoth, delivered on 26th April 2024, taxing the applicant advocate's bill of costs in Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2016. By notice of motion dated 3rd December 2024, the applicant sought leave to file an objection and a taxation reference out of time, arguing that he had filed a letter of objection and a request for reasons within 13 days of the ruling, that the Deputy Registrar never responded, and that his advocate's absence due to his mother's illness explained the delay. He invoked rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Regulations and section 4 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, relying on the Salat and Chemaringo decisions on extension of time. The respondent filed grounds of opposition contending the application was defective and an abuse of process. The court held that taxation of costs ordered by the Court of Appeal is governed by rule 117 of the Court of Appeal Rules, under which - unlike under the Advocates Remuneration Order - there is no requirement for reasons or for a chamber summons. Critically, since the applicant himself maintained that he had objected within time, the extension application was unnecessary. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs. This is an interlocutory ruling on procedure rather than a decision on the merits of the taxation.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicant had already complied with the time requirements for filing a taxation reference such that leave to file out of time was unnecessary
  2. 2.Whether the Court should grant leave to file an objection and a reference out of time against the Taxing Master's ruling

Key legal issues

#
01

Governing framework for references against taxing decisions of the Registrar

Holding

Taxation of costs ordered by the Court of Appeal is governed by Part V of the Court of Appeal Rules, specifically rule 117, not the Advocates Remuneration Order

Reasoning

The court set out rule 117 in full, including the seven-day window for an informal or written reference and the categories of decisions deemed to involve matters of principle. The applicant mistakenly invoked the Advocates Remuneration Order regime, which requires reasons to be requested before a reference; that requirement does not apply under the Court of Appeal Rules.

p. 2
02

Whether extension of time was needed

Holding

Since the applicant asserted that he objected to the taxation within time, the extension-of-time application was superfluous and dismissed

Reasoning

The applicant maintained that he filed an objection and a request for reasons within 13 days of the ruling. If that assertion is correct, his reference was lodged in time and no extension was needed; the application therefore defeated itself and was dismissed without costs.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Under the Court of Appeal Rules, unlike the Advocates Remuneration Order, there is no requirement for reasons and for a chamber summons application when seeking a reference against a taxing decision

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 3rd December 2024 seeking leave to file an objection and taxation reference out of time is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

GO
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Court of Appeal of Kenya (Deputy Registrar, Taxing Officer)
Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2016
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 4 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (invoked by applicant) and Rule 117 of the Court of Appeal Rules; inherent discretionary extension-of-time jurisdiction

Relief refused

#

Leave to file an objection and taxation reference out of time against the ruling of the Deputy Registrar dated 26th April 2024

The applicant contended he objected to the taxation within time; if correct, the application for extension of time was unnecessary

p. 3

Costs

No order as to costs - 'It is dismissed but with no order as to costs.'

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.

Unlike under the Advocates Remuneration Order which the applicant seems to be referring to, under the Court of Appeal Rules there is no requirement for reasons and for chamber summons application to be filed.
p. 3Distinction between Court of Appeal Rules and Advocates Remuneration Order on references against taxation
The applicant contends that he objected to the taxation within time. If that position is correct then this application is unnecessary.
p. 3Futility of extension-of-time application where timeliness is asserted
It is dismissed but with no order as to costs.
p. 3Final orders - dismissal of application

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment refers to the applicant's 'appeal' and to 'section 4 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (sic)' in circumstances where the instrument cited is not verified; the Act cited by the applicant is marked '(sic)' in the judgment itself

minor

The judgment does not set out the names of the parties in the title or coram beyond 'the applicant' and 'the respondent', making full identification of the parties impossible from the text alone

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chege Kamau Advocates v County Government of Bomet (Civil Application E112 of 2024) [2025] KECA 836 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2016 (application dated 3rd December 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/836/eng@2025-05-15

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