Mokua t/a Mokua Ndubi & Co Advocates v Njuguna (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E040 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2615 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan High Court ruled that missing a court e-filing deadline isn't an excuse, awarding an advocate Kshs. 197,707.50 plus 14% interest.
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 Respondent has established sufficient cause for the enlargement of time to file an Objection/Reference
- 2.Whether judgment should be entered in favour of the Applicant pursuant to Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act
Key legal issues
#Whether sufficient cause was established for enlargement of time to file a reference
No. The ruling was available on the CTS within the 14-day objection window; counsel's failure to track the matter was not an excusable mistake, and the intended reference lacked merit.
The court applied the Salat principles on extension of time. The ruling was uploaded to the CTS on 17th December 2025, within the 14-day period under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The Respondent's claim of inability to access the ruling was contradicted by the record. Further, the Taxing Master had expressly accounted for the Kshs. 340,000 payment when reducing instruction fees, so an extension would be an exercise in vain.
Whether judgment should be entered under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act
Yes. A valid Certificate of Taxation existed, had not been set aside, and the retainer was not disputed, entitling the Advocate to judgment for the certified sum plus 14% interest.
Section 51(2) permits entry of judgment where there is a valid, un-set-aside Certificate of Taxation and the retainer is not disputed. The Respondent did not deny the advocate-client relationship, only the accounting, which was addressed and rejected. Interest at 14% per annum was properly claimable under Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order from 30th July 2025, one month after delivery of the bill dated 30th June 2025.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party who lays a basis to the satisfaction of the court, and will not be granted where the underlying application lacks merit.
- A court may interfere with a taxing officer's decision only where it is shown the decision was based on an error of principle or the fee was manifestly excessive.
- Where a retainer is not disputed and no reference lies against the taxing officer's certificate, the Advocate is entitled to judgment for the amount certified.
- An advocate may charge interest at 14% per annum on disbursements and costs from the expiration of one month from delivery of the bill, provided the claim for interest was raised in the bill.
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent's Chamber Summons dated 30th January 2026 is dismissed for lack of merit with costs to the Advocate
- 2.The Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 7th January 2026 is allowed
- 3.Judgment is entered in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent for the certified sum of Kshs. 197,707.50 with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 30th July 2025 until payment in full
- 4.The Advocate/Applicant is awarded the costs of both applications
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act (Cap 16) and the Advocates Remuneration Order
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file a Notice of Objection/Reference against the Taxing Master's decision, and stay of execution pending the reference
The Respondent failed to file the objection within 14 days of the ruling being uploaded to the CTS; counsel's ignorance of the uploaded ruling was not an excusable mistake, and the intended reference lacked merit because the Taxing Master had already accounted for the Kshs. 340,000 payment
In the alternative, setting aside or varying the Ruling and/or Certificate of Taxation to discount the Kshs. 340,000 upfront payment
The Taxing Master had expressly factored the Kshs. 340,000 payment in reducing instruction fees from Kshs. 600,000 to Kshs. 100,000
Costs
The Respondent's Chamber Summons dismissed with costs to the Advocate; the Advocate/Applicant is awarded the costs of both applications.
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.
Ignorance of a ruling being uploaded to the portal, when counsel has a duty to track their matters, does not constitute an "excusable mistake."
The Respondent's Chamber Summons dated 30th January 2026 is hereby dismissed for lack of merit with costs to the Advocate.
Judgment is entered in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent for the certified sum of Kshs. 197,707.50 with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 30th July 2025 until payment in full.
The Advocate/Applicant is awarded the costs of both applications.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of this ruling itself is not stated in the judgment; only the underlying matter (Kajiado ELC Case No. 7 of 2022) is referenced.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mokua t/a Mokua Ndubi & Co Advocates v Njuguna (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E040 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2615 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (Advocate-Client Bill of Costs taxation; Kajiado ELC Case No. 7 of 2022 is the underlying matter). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2615/eng@2026-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.