Godad v Ahmed & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 4 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 4217 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Garissa dismissed a bid for more time to challenge a taxed costs decision, because four months of inaction went unexplained.
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 Plaintiff has satisfactorily explained the delay in commencing the objection and reference proceedings
- 2.whether the Court should exercise its discretion under paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order in favor of the Plaintiff
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff satisfactorily explained the delay
The court excused the period before the ruling was uploaded onto CTS but found the four-month period thereafter unexplained; no evidence of any step taken to ascertain the status of the taxation was offered
The Taxing Officer's ruling was uploaded onto CTS on 19th September 2025 and the Plaintiff's advocates discovered it on 14th January 2026. The court found no correspondence, inquiry, registry attendance, or monitoring of CTS during that period. Failure to notify parties is a relevant consideration but not a complete answer absent diligence by the applicant. Filing the application one day after discovery demonstrated post-discovery diligence only, not an explanation for the preceding inactivity.
Whether the discretion under paragraph 11(4) should be exercised in the Plaintiff's favour
Discretion refused; the equitable nature of the remedy required the applicant to demonstrate diligence, which was not shown
Applying the Supreme Court's principles in Nicholas Salat, County Executive of Kisumu and Mombasa County Government, the court held that extension of time is an equitable remedy requiring a deserving applicant. Lack of substantial prejudice to the Defendants was not decisive. The court found that allowing extension would reward passivity and shift responsibility for conduct of litigation from parties to the court.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking extension of time must explain the entire period of delay to the satisfaction of the court; identifying the date action was eventually taken is insufficient.
- Absence of formal notification of a ruling does not excuse an applicant who shows no diligence of his own in monitoring proceedings he instituted.
- An arguable intended challenge does not confer an automatic right to extension of time.
- Absence of a draft reference is not fatal to an application under paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's Chamber Summons dated 15th January 2026 seeking enlargement of time to object to the decision of the Taxing Officer dated 19th November 2024 and to file a reference therefrom out of time is hereby dismissed.
- 2.The Plaintiff shall bear the Defendants' costs of the application.
- 3.The file is closed.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order - discretion to enlarge time prescribed under paragraphs 11(1) and (2)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to object to the Taxing Officer's decision dated 19th November 2024 and to file a reference out of time
The Plaintiff failed to satisfactorily explain the whole period of delay, particularly the approximately four months after the ruling became available on CTS on 19th September 2025 until its discovery on 14th January 2026, with no evidence of any inquiry or follow-up
Costs
The Plaintiff shall bear the Defendants' costs of the application.
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.
I accordingly find that the Plaintiffs has failed to satisfactorily explain the whole period of delay and has therefore not established sufficient cause for enlargement of time.
It demonstrates diligence after discovery; The Plaintiffs locked the door after the horse had bolted. It does not explain the preceding failure to discover a ruling that had been available on the Court's electronic system for approximately four months.
The Plaintiffs Chamber Summons dated 15th January 2026 seeking enlargement of time to object to the decision of the Taxing Officer dated 19th November 2024 and to file a reference therefrom out of time is hereby dismissed.
The Plaintiffs shall bear the Defendants' costs of the application.
Extension of time being a creature of equity, one can only enjoy it if he acts equitably: he who seeks equity must do equity. Hence, one has to lay a basis that he was not at fault so as to let time lapse.
Issues in the judgment
#Paragraph numbering is inconsistent - the numbering jumps from 15 back to 15, omits paragraph 40, and repeats number 48 twice
The judge's name appears in the coram with honorific title 'DR.' and 'FCIArb' designation, while the judgment text repeatedly misprints 'Plaintifi' for 'Plaintiff'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Godad v Ahmed & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 4 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 4217 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Chamber Summons dated 15th January 2026 (Environment and Land Case reference not stated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4217/eng@2026-07-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.