Nyambega Gisesa v National Land Commission & 4 others; Ministry of Lands & Physical Planning & 3 others (Interested Parties)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court gave Nyamira County more time to challenge a Ksh. 57.6 million legal fees bill, but refused to hand over the money yet.
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 Honourable County Attorney to come on record for the Fifth Respondent
- 2.Whether enlargement of time to file a reference against the taxation ruling delivered on 27th December 2024 should be granted
- 3.Whether the Deputy Registrar's decision on taxation under item no. 1 (instruction fees) should be set aside
- 4.Whether judgment should be entered for the Petitioner as prayed
Key legal issues
#Whether to enlarge time for filing a notice of objection and reference against a taxation ruling filed fourteen months out of time
Extension granted despite inordinate delay, because the delay was not by itself determinative, mistakes of counsel should not be visited on litigants, no irreparable prejudice was shown, and public interest in just determination of fees payable from public funds favoured a reference
The court applied the Salat principles: extension is discretionary and equitable, requiring satisfactory explanation and absence of prejudice. Although fourteen months was inordinate, the Fifth Respondent's claim that its advocates never informed it of the taxation was a possibility it could not discount at an interlocutory stage. Prejudice to the Petitioner was compensable by costs, and Article 201(d) required the quantum of fees payable from public funds to be justly determined before commitment.
Whether judgment should be entered on the certificate of taxation
Refused as premature; the Fifth Respondent must first give notice of objection within the enlarged period and file a reference if dissatisfied with the taxing officer's reasons
The court held that no valid reference existed at the time, so it could not determine the propriety of the taxed quantum or adopt the certificate as an executable decree. The merits of the taxation were expressly left open for determination once a valid reference is filed and parties heard.
Whether the County Attorney should come on record for the Fifth Respondent
Allowed, the prayer being unopposed and grounded on Section 7 of the Office of the County Attorney Act and the constitutional right to choose representation
The court noted the County Attorney is the principal legal adviser and ideal legal representative of the county government in civil proceedings, and no compelling reason was advanced to deny the change of advocates.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy, not a right; the applicant must explain the delay, and the court considers prejudice, arguability and public interest on a case-by-case basis
- Length of delay alone is not determinative; the court weighs explanation, prejudice, arguability of the intended reference and the broader interests of justice
- Prudent and responsible utilisation of public funds under Article 201(d) of the Constitution is a mandatory constitutional edict that courts must consider where a decree would be settled from public funds
- A party has a constitutional right to choose its legal representation, to be interfered with only for compelling reasons
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the Honourable County Attorney - Nyamira to come on record for the Fifth Respondent in place of Omesa Mogeni & Company Advocates
- 2.Time within which the Fifth Respondent may object to the Taxing Officer's decision in the ruling of 27th December 2024 and file a reference enlarged
- 3.Fifth Respondent to file and serve notice of objection within seven (7) days; any ensuing reference to be filed within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the reasons
- 4.In default of timely compliance, leave granted shall lapse and the Petitioner's Notice of Motion dated 1st August 2025 shall be set down for hearing
- 5.Fifth Respondent to have costs of the Chamber Summons dated 3rd March 2026
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; inherent discretion of the Environment and Land Court over its own proceedings
Relief refused
#Entry of judgment for the Petitioner for Ksh. 57,606,500.00 as per the certificate of taxation
Premature to enter judgment on the certificate before the Fifth Respondent files a valid reference under the enlarged time
Setting aside of the Deputy Registrar's decision on taxation under item no. 1 (instruction fees)
No valid reference is before the Court; the Fifth Respondent must first comply with Paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order
Costs
The Fifth Respondent shall have costs of Chamber Summons dated 3rd March 2026.
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 but an equitable remedy available at the discretion of the Court; that the party seeking extension bears the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the Court
the length of delay, though an important consideration, is not by itself determinative.
It is a possibility that it was not informed. If that be the case, I bear in mind that Courts have severally held that mistakes of counsel should not be visited on litigants.
It is in public interest that the quantum of Party and Party fees be justly determined before public funds are committed.
b) Time within which the Fifth Respondent may object to the decision of the Taxing Officer comprised in the ruling delivered on 27th December 2024 and file a reference is hereby enlarged.
In default of timely compliance with (c) above, leave so granted shall lapse and the Petitioner’s Notice of Motion dated 1st August 2025 shall be set down for hearing.
e) The Fifth Respondent shall have costs of Chamber Summons dated 3rd March 2026.
Issues in the judgment
#Petitioner's submissions dated 2nd June 2025 predate the Fifth Respondent's Chamber Summons dated 3rd March 2026 they oppose
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyambega Gisesa v National Land Commission & 4 others; Ministry of Lands & Physical Planning & 3 others (Interested Parties)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Petition No. E001 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6236/eng@2026-10-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.