County Government of Siaya v Olendo Orare & Samba Advocates LLP (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E030 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2718 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Siaya struck out a challenge to a Kshs.85 million fee ruling because it was filed late without asking for extra time first.
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 preliminary objection that the court lacks jurisdiction for non-compliance with Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order is properly raised and upheld
- 2.Whether the reference/application filed out of time without leave under Rule 11(4) is competent
- 3.Whether the taxing master's failure to respond to the letter requesting reasons excuses the late filing of the reference
Key legal issues
#Whether the reference could proceed without leave for filing out of time
The reference was filed out of time and leave under Rule 11(4) was never sought; the application was defective and could not be cured
The impugned ruling was delivered on 8 August 2025 and the application was dated 15 September 2025, more than 30 days later. Rule 11 allows 14 days to object and a further 14 days from receipt of reasons to apply to a judge. Even excluding the period allowed to the taxing officer to respond, the application was late. The court noted that the applicant had sought reasons by letter of 13 August 2025 but the taxing master never responded; yet this did not excuse the delay — leave for extension of time was mandatory and none was sought.
Whether the preliminary objection was properly raised
The preliminary objection was properly raised as a pure point of law on procedure under Rule 11
Applying the definition in Mukisa Biscuits and Nitin Properties, the court held that it need only examine whether the procedure in Rule 11 was met against the pleadings, without ascertaining facts or exercising discretion. The objection, grounded on Rule 11(2), was therefore a pure point of law properly raising the question of the court's jurisdiction over a time-barred reference.
Whether the applicant was barred from objecting for having failed to participate in the taxation
Non-participation in the taxation did not bar the applicant from objecting to the taxing master's decision
The respondent argued that the applicant, having never filed a response to the bill despite adjournments, could not challenge the taxation. The court disagreed, holding that once a decision of the taxing master exists and a party is aggrieved by it, that party is entitled to be heard on the objection — though only subject to compliance with the rules, which the applicant failed here on timing.
Legal principles established
#- A reference objecting to a taxing master's decision filed beyond 14 days requires prior leave of the court for extension of time under Rule 11(4), even where the taxing officer has failed to furnish reasons
- A party aggrieved by a taxing master's decision is entitled to audience on the objection subject to compliance with the relevant rules
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 15/09/2025 and L.Misc E030 of 2025 struck out
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order (objection to taxing master's decision; enlargement of time under Rule 11(4))
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the ruling on taxation dated 12 March 2025
The application was defective for want of leave to file the reference out of time, so the court declined to consider the merits
Setting aside of the Taxing Master's ruling of 8 August 2025 and taxation of the Bill of Costs afresh
The reference was filed out of time and no extension of time was sought or granted under Rule 11(4)
Costs
No orders as to costs — 'There will be no orders 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.
Any reference filed beyond the 14 days and if the aggrieved party still desires to file the reference, they would first have to seek leave of the court to file the reference out of time as required under Rule 11(4).
The application and L.Misc E030 of 2025 is hereby struck out. There will be no orders as to costs. It is so ordered.
'A Preliminary Objection raises a pure point of law, which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion.'
For the above reasons the present application cannot be cured. It is defective in the absence of leave of this court. For this reason the court will not delve into the merits of the decision of the taxing master.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the applicant as both 'Applicant' and 'respondent' when discussing the right to be heard against the taxing decision, an apparent drafting slip
The depositions refer to the underlying matter inconsistently as Siaya ELC Misc. Application No. E019 of 2022 and later as No. E019 of 2021
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Siaya v Olendo Orare & Samba Advocates LLP (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E030 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2718 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Siaya ELC L.Misc E030 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2718/eng@2026-05-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.