Kariuki (Deceased) v Attorney General & 29 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E019 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1487 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court let the executors of Lawrence Nginyo Kariuki challenge a Kshs. 2.93 million costs ruling they never knew about, because a dead client's lawyer cannot keep acting.
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 Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 23rd September, 2025 is merited
- 2.Whether time should be extended to allow the Plaintiff file a Reference out of time against the Taxing Master's ruling delivered on 13th March, 2024
- 3.Whether the Taxing Master's Ruling delivered on 13th March, 2024 ought to be stayed pending the intended reference against the decision
Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection on the change of advocates under Order 9 Rule 9 was merited
Not merited. The advocate-client relationship ended on the client's death, so the outgoing firm (Stanley Henry & Company Advocates) had no authority to participate in taxation, and Order 9 Rule 9 did not govern the incoming firm's coming on record.
The court found that the deceased's former advocates lacked authority from the executors when they appeared in the taxation proceedings. Since the advocate-client relationship terminates upon the death of a client, Order 9 Rule 9 - which governs change of advocates after judgment - did not apply. The court further relied on the Wafubwa authority to hold that non-compliance with Rule 9 does not oust jurisdiction, and Article 159 of the Constitution and the overriding objective favour substantive justice over procedural technicality.
Whether time should be extended to file a reference out of time against the Taxing Master's ruling of 13th March, 2024
Yes. The taxation proceedings were conducted personally against the deceased without the knowledge of his executors, breaching their right to a fair hearing.
Applying the Salat and Muringa Company principles on extension of time, the court found the delay explained by prolonged probate litigation concluding with the Court of Appeal judgment of 8th November 2024, and that the executors learnt of the taxation only upon attempted execution on 12th August 2025. Invoking Article 50(1) and 50(c) of the Constitution and the audi alteram partem rule, the court held it fair and just, in furtherance of the overriding objective, to grant the applicants an opportunity to file their reference out of time.
Whether the Taxing Master's ruling of 13th March, 2024 should be stayed pending the reference
Yes. Execution of the taxation decision was stayed to await the outcome of the reference.
Having extended time to file the reference out of time, the court reasoned that execution should be stayed so as not to render the reference nugatory and to preserve the deceased's estate from execution and threatened garnishee proceedings while the objection to taxation is determined.
Legal principles established
#- The advocate-client relationship terminates upon the death of either the client or the advocate, and an advocate cannot continue to act unless renewed by the deceased client's legal representatives
- Non-compliance with Order 9 Rule 9 does not oust the jurisdiction of the court; substantive justice prevails over procedural technicalities
- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available to a deserving party at the court's discretion, with the burden on the applicant to explain the delay and show absence of prejudice
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 23rd September, 2025 is dismissed
- 2.The Applicants are granted leave to file their objection to the taxation and reference against the decision of the Taxing Master delivered on 13th March, 2024 within 14 days from the date of the ruling
- 3.The costs of the application and the preliminary objection shall be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the High Court under the Constitution and Civil Procedure Rules, Order 9 Rule 9 and the Advocates (Remuneration) Order (taxation reference jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Dismissal of the Notice of Motion dated 19th September, 2025 ex debito justitiae for violation of Order 9 Rule 9(a) and (b) of the Civil Procedure Rules
The advocate-client relationship terminates on the death of the client, so Order 9 Rule 9 did not apply to Oraro & Company Advocates coming on record; further, non-compliance with Order 9 Rule 9 does not oust the court's jurisdiction
Costs
The costs of the application and the preliminary objection shall be in the cause.
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.
Bearing in mind that Stanley Henry & Company Advocates did not have the requisite authority to participate in the taxation proceedings on behalf of the executors/administrators of the late Lawrence Nginyo Kariuki, Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not apply in this case. The preliminary objection by the Interested Parties is therefore not merited.
It is evidently clear that the Taxation proceedings initiated personally against the late Lawrence Nginyo Kariuki were conducted in the absence of and without the knowledge of his executors.
The Applicants are granted leave to file their objection to the taxation and reference against the decision of Taxing Master delivered on 13th March, 2024 in the next 14 days from the date of this ruling.
Having extended time to file a reference out of time, execution of the decision of the Taxing Master delivered on 13th March, 2024 is accordingly stayed to await the outcome of the reference.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment gives conflicting dates for the deceased's death: para 2 states he died on 24th January, 2020 while para 23 states 24th February, 2020
The judgment gives conflicting taxed amounts: Kshs.2,929,912/= in paragraphs 3 and 24 versus Kshs. 2,928,912.00/= in paragraph 9
The judgment records directions given 'On 23rd September, 2023' allowing prayers (a) and (b) of an application dated 19th September, 2025 - the year appears to be an error for 2025
The date of delivery is printed as '3RD DAY OF MARCH 2026' while the matter was heard in late 2025; the heading in paragraph 6 also contains repeated erroneous dates
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kariuki (Deceased) v Attorney General & 29 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E019 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1487 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kajiado High Court Miscellaneous Application arising from ELC No. 690 of 2017 (formerly Machakos ELC No. 101 of 2010); Notice of Motion dated 19th September, 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1487/eng@2026-03-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.