Ngungu v China Road & Bridge Corporation & another (Environment and Land Case 378 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 1434 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court refused to extend time to challenge a taxed advocate-client bill because the applicant waited nearly two years without a credible excuse.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Applicant has demonstrated merit in the instant application for enlargement of time to file a reference
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant was entitled to enlargement of time to file a reference against the Taxing Master's ruling
The application was dismissed because the delay of about one year and ten months was inordinate and unexplained
Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order empowers the court to enlarge time even where it has expired. Applying the Leo Sila Mutiso and Salat principles, the court examined the length of and reason for the delay. The Applicant's explanation - that she awaited substitution of the deceased 2nd Defendant - was implausible because the deceased died on 6th January 2025, long after the 14th August 2023 deadline, and she had participated in litigation in the interim. The delay was therefore not satisfactorily explained and no sufficient cause was shown.
Legal principles established
#- The court has discretion under Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order to enlarge time for filing a reference even where time has expired, but that discretion must be exercised judiciously having regard to the length of and reason for the delay, the chances of the reference succeeding and prejudice to the respondent
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 16th June 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the 2nd Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 159 of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Relief refused
#Enlargement of time within which to file a reference against the Taxing Master's decision of 17th July 2023
The delay of about one year and ten months was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained; the explanation regarding pending substitution was implausible since the deceased died long after the taxation
Stay of execution of the Taxing Master's order pending the intended reference
It fell with the dismissal of the application for enlargement of time, as the intended reference could not be filed
Order compelling the 2nd Respondent's Advocates to release the death certificate of the late Elijah Ngungu Mwengi or produce the 2nd Defendant in court
Not addressed in the court's determination and consequently not granted
Costs
Application dismissed with costs (to the 2nd Respondent)
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.
In the end, the instant application is devoid of merit and is dismissed with costs.
Evidently, it is clear that the Applicant is guilty of inordinate delay of about one year and ten months since the Taxing oficer delivered her ruling. The said delay has not been satisfactorily explained.
Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court;
Under the provisions of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, the court has unfettered discretion on whether to enlarge time or not. However, that discretion has to be exercised judiciously
Issues in the judgment
#The 2nd Respondent's submissions are dated 3rd February 2026 while the supporting and further affidavits and the ruling date suggest the matter was argued in 2025; the ruling was delivered 12th March 2026, making the submissions date internally consistent but the year '2026' for submissions filed before a 2025-application hearing cycle may reflect a typographical error
Prayer 5 (release of the death certificate or production of the 2nd Defendant) is neither addressed nor determined in the court's final analysis and orders
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngungu v China Road & Bridge Corporation & another (Environment and Land Case 378 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 1434 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1434/eng@2026-03-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.