Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELCL MISC NO. E001 OF 2026· [2026] KEELC 3467 (KLR)

Karanja v Martin p/a Wachungo Martin and Co Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3467 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
3 June 2026
LMLUCY N. MBUGUA
994 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court gave a client extra time to challenge an advocate's taxed legal fees, but she pays the costs for her delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling by Lucy N. Mbugua, Judge, at the High Court, Nyahururu, on a chamber summons application dated 30 October 2025 by Margaret Nduta seeking enlargement of time to file a reference out of a taxing officer's decision of 12 February 2025, a stay of execution of the certificate of taxation, a stay of proceedings in the related enforcement suit MCCC/E046/2025, and costs. The respondent, an advocate, opposed, arguing there was no explanation for the delay, that stay had been dealt with in the subordinate court ruling of 15 October 2025, that judgment had already been entered in the enforcement suit, and that the application was res judicata given a similar application filed on 10 March 2025. The court applied Order 11 Rule 4 of the Advocates Remuneration Order and the principle that extension of time is a judicial discretion exercised on principle, considering the length of and reasons for delay, substantial loss and prejudice. It found the applicant had given a plausible explanation, having pursued a prior application dismissed on 22 October 2025 and filed the present application about a week later. The court allowed the application in part: time was enlarged for 14 days to file the reference (failing which the orders lapse), and a stay of execution on costs was granted for four months. The prayer for stay of proceedings was not granted. The applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the miscellaneous suit for not having been more vigilant after the taxation ruling of 12 February 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Enlargement of time to file a reference out of a taxing officer's decision

Holding

The court enlarged time, finding the applicant had given a plausible explanation for the delay since she had pursued a prior application challenging the taxation which was dismissed on 22.10.2025, and filed the current application about a week thereafter

Reasoning

Order 11 Rule 4 of the Advocates Remuneration Order confers a discretion on the High Court to enlarge time even after expiry. The discretion is judicial and must be exercised on principle, considering length of and reasons for delay, substantial loss and prejudice. The applicant's account of pursuing a prior review and stay application dismissed on 22.10.2025, followed by this application within about a week, constituted a plausible explanation for the delay.

p. 5
02

Stay of execution of the certificate of taxation

Holding

Stay of execution on costs granted for four months, the court holding that execution can still be halted even after judgment in the enforcement suit

Reasoning

The applicant's concern was execution of costs. Although judgment had been entered in the enforcement suit MCCC/E046/2025, the court reasoned that execution can nonetheless be halted. A four-month stay was granted to enable prosecution of the reference, with time enlarged for 14 days and the orders lapsing if the reference is not filed.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • The grant or refusal of an extension of time is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised in a princip manner in accordance with reason and justice
  • In exercising discretion on extension of time, the court considers the length of and reasons for the delay, whether the applicant would suffer substantial loss, and the degree of prejudice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Time enlarged for the applicant to file a Reference within 14 days from the date of the Ruling, failing which the orders granted shall lapse
  2. 2.Order of stay of execution on costs granted for a period of 4 months
  3. 3.Costs of the miscellaneous suit borne by the Applicant in favour of the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration OrderOrder 11 Rule 4
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 50

Cases cited (5)

  • Morgan Air Cargo Limited v Everest Enterprises Limited
    (2014) eKLR
  • Charles Munge v Peter Icharia Munge & Another
    2015 KECA 514 (KLR)
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Parmuati Oloishuru Kore v Eric Ntabo and Co. Advocates
    [2019] eKLR
  • Leon Ojiambo Ojian & another v Lilian Mushele Wafula & another
    (supra)
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 11 Rule 4 of the Advocates Remuneration Order - discretionary power of the High Court to enlarge time for filing a reference out of a taxing officer's decision

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karanja v Martin p/a Wachungo Martin and Co Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3467 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCL MISC NO. E001 OF 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3467/eng@2026-06-03

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.