Haji t/a Almumin High School v Onsongo t/a Hegeons Auctioneers (Appeal E055 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 383 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Nakuru dismissed an appeal filed four months late against taxed auctioneers' fees, because the appellant never explained the delay.
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 is entitled to extension of time to lodge an appeal out of time under Rule 55(5) of the Auctioneers Rules
- 2.Whether the Application, which pursues multiple distinct orders in one omnibus motion, is properly before the Court
- 3.Whether the orders of taxation/assessment made on 12th March 2024 should be set aside and the Respondent's Bill of Costs reassessed
Key legal issues
#Extension of time to appeal out of the prescribed 7-day period
Extension refused; the applicant gave no explanation for the 4-month delay and did not disclose clear grounds of appeal
The Court held that a party seeking extension of time must explain the delay and show arguable grounds. The Appellant filed 4 months after assessment, offered no explanation for the delay, did not explain her absence when the Bill was taxed, and did not identify any specific item wrongly allowed by the Taxing Master.
Omnibus applications combining distinct reliefs
The Application was an omnibus one and inappropriate; the Appellant should have first sought extension of time in a separate application
Relying on Muriithi Wanjao and Silei, the Court held that applications pursuing various distinctive orders under one umbrella are incapable of proper adjudication because each relief is governed by different rules and different judicial principles. Extension of time should have been sought first to open the path to other reliefs.
Scope of the taxing Court's role under Rule 55(3)
The taxing Court's role was to assess the Bill, not to reassess it; the complaint that it failed to 'reassess' was misconceived
The Court found the Appellant's grievance that the taxing Court allowed the Bill as drawn without reassessing it misplaced. Rule 55(3) mandates assessment of auctioneers' fees and disbursements, and the Court could not fault the taxing Court for not performing a function outside its role.
Legal principles established
#- An aggrieved party must file an appeal against an assessment of auctioneers' fees within 7 days under Rule 55(5) of the Auctioneers Rules, and extension of time requires an explanation for the delay
- An omnibus application pursuing various distinctive orders under one umbrella is inappropriate and incapable of proper adjudication
Court orders
#- 1.The entire Appeal/Application filed by the Appellant is declined
- 2.No order on the costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court (Nakuru), E&LRC Miscellaneous
- 246 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 55(3), (4) and (5) of the Auctioneers Rules, 1997
Relief refused
#Deeming the Application an Appeal and leave to lodge the Appeal out of time
No explanation offered for the 4-month inordinate delay beyond the 7-day period under Rule 55(5)
Stay of execution pending appeal
No valid appeal exists since extension of time was refused
Setting aside the taxation orders and reassessment of the Bill of Costs
Application was an omnibus one incapable of proper adjudication, and no specific item of the taxed Bill was shown to be wrongly allowed
Costs
No order on the 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 odered: a. The entire Appeal/Application filed by the Appellant is declined. b. No order on the costs.
As it is, there is no valid Appeal before the Court, and the orders sought have no merit.
Such applications, are incapable of proper adjudication by the Court, for each of the relief sought, apart from being governed by difierent rules, is also subject to long established and difierent judicial principles.
Her afidavit does not ofier any form of an explanation, for the inordinate delay of 4 months, from the date of the assessment, to the date of filing the Appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Prayer [i] of the application is omitted from the numbered recitation of prayers; the text jumps to prayer [ii]
Typographical errors: 'odered' for 'ordered', and 'ofiier/ofier' for 'offer'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Haji t/a Almumin High School v Onsongo t/a Hegeons Auctioneers (Appeal E055 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 383 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (arising from Nakuru Chief Magistrate's Court E&LRC Miscellaneous Application No. 246 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/383/eng@2025-02-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.