J.M. Njenga & Co. Advocates LLP v Kimuri Housing Company Ltd (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E129 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4391 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that advocates must obtain a judge's leave before appealing a fee-taxation ruling, and granted it here because appeals are a constitutional right.
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 Applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant this Court's leave to Appeal its Ruling dated 24th March 2025
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant leave to appeal the Ruling of 24th March 2025 on a reference
Leave was granted: the application was filed within two weeks (no inordinate delay) and the intended appeal was treated as arguable, with the court holding that since an appeal is a constitutional right it could not deny an aggrieved party leave
The court applied paragraph 11(3) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014, which requires leave of the judge before appealing a decision on a reference. It adopted the test in Onindo & Associates Advocates v Gatatha Farmers Co Limited, that the applicant must show legitimately arguable points creating a realistic possibility of success. It found the two-week delay excusable and reasoned that because an appeal is a constitutional right, an aggrieved party cannot be denied leave. The motion was allowed with no order as to costs.
Legal principles established
#- A person aggrieved by a judge's decision on a reference under the Advocates Remuneration Order may appeal to the Court of Appeal only with the leave of the judge
- In deciding whether to grant leave, the court considers whether there is a realistic possibility of success on the intended appeal
- A party who does not seek leave to appeal a decision on a reference lacks standing before the Court of Appeal
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the Applicant to Appeal against the Court's Ruling of 24th March 2025
- 2.Notice of Motion dated 8th April 2025 allowed
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(3) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2014 (leave of the judge to appeal a ruling on a reference); Articles 48 and 50 of the Constitution
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 only issue for determination is whether the Applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant this Court’s leave to Appeal its Ruling dated 24th March 2025."
"I find that the Applicant is entitled to leave to Appeal against this Court’s impugned Ruling of 24th March 2025, and will allow it."
"I find the instant Notice of Motion application dated the 8th April 2025 merited and will allow it."
"Each party to bear their own costs."
Issues in the judgment
#The delivery date is stated as 2026, which is inconsistent with a judgment on an application filed 8th April 2025 and with the dates discussed in the ruling; this may be a typographical error in the judgment
The application's prayer cites the Ruling date as 14th March 2025 while the supporting affidavit and submissions refer to 24th March 2025; the court treated this as a typo
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "J.M. Njenga & Co. Advocates LLP v Kimuri Housing Company Ltd (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E129 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4391 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC L MISC. NO. E129 OF 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4391/eng@2026-07-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.