Karingo v Attorney General & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 1404 of 2004) [2026] KEELC 5290 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Accepting payment of taxed costs doesn't end your appeal rights, but skipping the mandatory Notice of Objection step will get your challenge thrown out.
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 3rd and 4th Interested Parties are estopped from pursuing the Reference after accepting payment of the awarded costs.
- 2.Whether the Taxing Officer had jurisdiction to review his own taxation decision
- 3.Whether the Reference is merited.
- 4.Who should bear the costs of the application.
Key legal issues
#Estoppel by acceptance of payment
Acceptance of the taxed sum of Kshs. 300,000/= did not estop the Interested Parties from pursuing the Reference, since the Reference was filed before payment and the payment was received expressly without prejudice to the Reference.
The court noted the Letter dated 4/12/2025 stating that any payment would be credited on account without prejudice to the Reference, and that the cheque was issued on 6/2/2026, after the Reference was filed. The Plaintiff therefore knew the Interested Parties intended to prosecute the Reference, and approbation and reprobation could not defeat the statutory right.
Jurisdiction of the taxing officer to review own taxation
The court found it had jurisdiction to determine the Reference, insofar as the taxing officer's ruling of 6/11/2025 was subject to a Reference under Rule 11; however, the Reference itself failed for procedural defect.
The court set out Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order and the mandatory requirement of a Notice of Objection within 14 days, citing Twiga Motor Limited v Hon. Dalmas Otieno Anyango on the consequence of missing the timelines. On checking the Case Tracking System, the Notice of Objection was never filed and was addressed to the wrong registry.
Competency of the Reference
The Reference was incompetent and dismissed because the mandatory Notice of Objection under Rule 11(1) was never filed; the Reference under Rule 11(2) was filed without it.
The notice attached to the chamber summons was not uploaded or filed on the Case Tracking System, was addressed to the Deputy Registrar of the High Court Kajiado rather than this Court, and would in any event have been filed about 8 days out of time without leave. An omnibus or missing notice cannot ground a Reference.
Legal principles established
#- Payment of the taxed/decretal sum does not extinguish a party's statutory right of appeal or Reference.
- A document merely annexed to an affidavit is not a filed document.
- A party aggrieved by a taxing officer's decision must first file a Notice of Objection to Taxation within 14 days; failing which a Reference under Rule 11(2) is incompetent.
Court orders
#- 1.The chamber summons amended on 18/12/2025 (the Reference) is dismissed as incompetent for want of a Notice of Objection to Taxation filed under Rule 11(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.
- 2.The Plaintiff's notice of motion is dismissed.
- 3.Each party to bear its own costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- null
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order, 2014 made under Section 44 of the Advocates Act, Cap. 16
Relief refused
#Setting aside the Deputy Registrar's ruling of 6/11/2025 and restoration of taxed costs of Kshs. 6,887,997/= (Reference)
The Reference was incompetent because no Notice of Objection to Taxation under Rule 11(1) was filed; the notice attached to the affidavit was never filed and, in any event, would have been out of time without leave.
Striking out the Reference as moot, overtaken by events and an abuse of process
Payment of the taxed sum does not extinguish the statutory right of Reference; payment was received on account without prejudice to the Reference.
Costs
Each party to bear its own costs.
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.
It is my view that the right to file a Reference cannot be extinguished by payment of the taxed sum.
A document annexed to an affidavit cannot be said to have been filed.
It is therefore my finding that the 3rd and 4th Interested Parties did not file the Notice of Objection to taxation contemplated under Rule 11(1) above, but instead filed the Reference under Rule 11(2) without first filing the Notice of Objection.
The upshot is that the chamber summons, amended on 18/12/2025, and the notice of motion dated 7/11/2025 are both dismissed. Each party to bear its own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Contradictory dates for the Notice of Objection: paragraph 32 states it was dated 7/11/2024, while paragraphs 33-34 state 7/11/2025.
The Plaintiff's notice of motion is dated 28/4/2026 in the body of the judgment, but the final orders dismiss a 'notice of motion dated 7/11/2025'.
The Bill of Costs is stated to have been taxed on 23/11/2023 in the prayer but 4/3/2024 in the supporting affidavit.
Sentence in paragraph 33 is truncated mid-word ('authenticity of t').
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karingo v Attorney General & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 1404 of 2004) [2026] KEELC 5290 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC.1404.2004-NBI. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5290/eng@2026-08-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.