Njuguna (Sued as the Legal Representative of Eunice Muthoni Njuguna) & another v Njuguna & 7 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4390 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused to excuse a missed email notice, so a Kshs 785,560 taxed costs award stands.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether leave should be granted to the applicants to file a taxation reference out of time against the ruling of the taxing officer delivered on 12.11.2025
- 2.Whether the ex-parte taxation proceedings and ruling should be set aside
Key legal issues
#Whether extension of time to file a taxation reference should be granted
The application was not merited; the applicants failed to lay a basis for extension of time
The applicants' entire case rested on the claim that taxation proceeded ex parte without service. Once the respondents demonstrated service by email, the applicants conceded receipt but alleged the email went unnoticed among others. The taxing officer had recorded satisfaction that service was effected on 1.10.2025. The applicants therefore failed to show sufficient grounds warranting the equitable remedy of extension of time, and the application was dismissed with costs.
Whether the ex-parte taxation proceedings should be set aside
The ex-parte proceedings were properly conducted; the setting-aside prayer failed
The applicants alleged no mention notice was served after 4.6.2025, rendering the proceedings irregular. However, the respondents produced proof of email service to the applicants' last known email address, and the applicants' supplementary affidavit conceded receipt of the notice. The court record confirmed the taxing officer was satisfied service had been effected when the matter was called out on 1.10.2025, so there were no grounds to set aside the proceedings or the ruling of 12.11.2025.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party at the court's discretion, and the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis to the court's satisfaction.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 11.12.2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion of the court to extend time under rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014
Relief refused
#Leave to file a taxation reference out of time
Applicants conceded service was effected; the email notice went unnoticed; no sufficient grounds to challenge the ex-parte proceedings
Setting aside the ex-parte proceedings and ruling
The court record showed the taxing officer was satisfied that service had been effected
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
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.
Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party, at the discretion of the Court.
A party who seeks extension of time has the burden of laying a basis, to the satisfaction of the Court
I find that the application dated 11.12.2025 is not merited, the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the dates of the taxation ruling: the applicants seek leave against a ruling delivered 12th November 2025, service of the ruling is described via a letter dated 5.12.2025 enclosing a ruling of 19.11.2025, and paragraph 10 refers to the ruling of 12.11.2025.
The date of the ex-parte taxation hearing is given as 1.10.2025, while the notice of taxation required attendance on 4.6.2025; the judgment does not explain the intervening appearances.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njuguna (Sued as the Legal Representative of Eunice Muthoni Njuguna) & another v Njuguna & 7 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4390 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Miscellaneous Suit (chamber summons application dated 11.12.2025), Nyahururu. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4390/eng@2026-07-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.