Lalji v Ochoki & Ochoki Associates Advocates (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E153 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2990 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court let a client's late challenge to a legal fees ruling proceed, ruling that a lawyer's delay should not punish the client.
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 5th November 2025 is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the absence of a written notice of objection to the taxing master renders the reference fatally defective
It does not; where the taxing master's ruling already contains the reasons, the notice under Order 11(1) is unnecessary and the objection limb of the preliminary objection fails.
Order 11(1) must be read together with Order 11(2). The written notice serves to obtain reasons where the taxing officer has not supplied them. Since the taxing master's ruling here set out the reasons in strict compliance with Order 11(2), the objector could proceed directly by chamber summons within 14 days. The court relied on Ahmednasir Abdikadir & Co. Advocates v National Bank of Kenya Ltd to the same effect.
Whether the delay in filing the reference beyond the 14-day statutory period is excusable
Yes; the delay was caused by the applicant's former advocate despite repeated follow-ups, and such mistakes should not be visited on the client.
The applicant attached emails of 11th April, 17th April and 9th May 2025 following up with counsel, with no feedback, after instructing counsel to file a reference immediately upon learning of the ruling of 19th March 2025. The court found the delay unpremeditated, excusable and beyond the applicant's control, and invoked Lucy Bosire v Kehancha Land Dispute Tribunal on advocate error not being visited on the client.
Legal principles established
#- Where the taxing master has already provided reasons in the taxation ruling, a written notice of objection under paragraph 11(1) is unnecessary and the party may proceed directly by chamber summons.
- Mistakes or blunders of an advocate should not be visited on the client where the situation can be remedied by costs.
Court orders
#- 1.The Advocate/Respondent Preliminary Objection cannot stand and is hereby dismissed.
- 2.Costs shall be in the cause.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order (reference to a judge against a taxing officer's decision)
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.
The Advocate/Respondent Preliminary Objection cannot stand and is hereby dismissed.
Where, as in this case, the taxing master has provided reasons in the decision Order 11(1) is rendered unnecessary and the party is at liberty within 14 days of the decision to apply to a judge by chamber summons, setting out the grounds of his objection.
I find that the Client/Applicant has clearly demonstrated that failure to file the Chamber Summons within the prescribed period was unpremeditated, excusable, and beyond the Applicant’s control.
It is true that where the justice of the case mandates, mistakes of advocates even if blunders should not be visited on the clients when the situation can be remedied by costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The delivery date appears as 14th May 2026 while the preliminary objection is dated 5th November 2025 and the taxing master's ruling 19th March 2025; the 2026 year may be an error for 2025.
Recurrent typographical rendering of 'offends' as 'ofiends' throughout the judgment.
The quoted passage from Ahmednasir Abdikadir ends incoherently, apparently omitting words in the transcription of the holding.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lalji v Ochoki & Ochoki Associates Advocates (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E153 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2990 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2990/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.