Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherNot stated in the judgment

Tom Ojienda & Associates v Nairobi City County Assembly (Miscellaneous Cause 113 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 963 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
27 March 2025
RSRadido Stephen
687 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court threw out a law firm's objection to taxed legal fees because it never filed the required Chamber Summons reference.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Prof Tom Ojienda & Associates filed an advocate/client Bill of Costs against the Nairobi City County Assembly, which the Taxing Officer taxed at Kshs 723,831/30 on 13 April 2017. Aggrieved, the advocate lodged a Notice of Objection under Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order on 26 April 2017, within 14 days of the taxation, and requested the Taxing Officer's reasons. The matter lingered: the Respondent objected that no Reference had been filed, the parties engaged in negotiations that came to nothing, and the objection was only placed before the Judge in March 2025. When it came up for hearing on 24 March 2025, the advocate sought an adjournment, which the Court declined, and directed that a Ruling be delivered. The Court analysed the sequence of steps prescribed by Rule 11(2): a dissatisfied party must notify the Taxing Officer within 14 days, obtain the reasons for the taxation, and then, within 14 days of receiving those reasons, move the Court by Chamber Summons - a Reference - setting out the grounds of objection. The Court noted that the reasons for taxation are usually embodied in the taxation Ruling, and that the advocate had not disclosed whether the Ruling was supplied or whether the reasons sought were contained in it. Critically, the Court held that a Judge's jurisdiction is invoked and determined only through a Reference by Chamber Summons, and no competent Reference was on file. Finding no competent application before it, the Court so declared on 27 March 2025, delivering its ruling virtually from Naivasha. No costs order appears in the judgment.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Notice of Objection filed under Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order was competent to invoke the Court's jurisdiction absent a Reference by Chamber Summons

Key legal issues

#
01

Competency of a Notice of Objection without a Reference under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Holding

The Notice of Objection alone does not invoke the Court's jurisdiction; a Chamber Summons (Reference) is required, and in its absence the objection is incompetent

Reasoning

Rule 11(2) prescribes sequential steps: notify the Taxing Officer of the objection within 14 days; obtain the Taxing Officer's reasons; then, within 14 days of receipt of the reasons, move the Court by Chamber Summons setting out the grounds of objection - the Reference. The advocate took the first step but never filed a Reference. The judgment does not show that reasons were never supplied; the advocate did not disclose whether the taxation Ruling containing the reasons was furnished. Without a Reference there is nothing competent before the Judge.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The Judge's jurisdiction on a taxation objection is invoked only through a Reference by Chamber Summons, not by a mere Notice of Objection; the Notice of Objection is only the first step under Rule 11(2)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Court found that there is no competent application before it

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

RS
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order (objection to a Taxing Officer's decision)

Relief refused

#

The advocate's objection to the taxation of the Bill of Costs (taxed at Kshs 723,831/30)

No Reference by Chamber Summons was filed as required by the Advocates Remuneration Order, so the Court's jurisdiction was never properly invoked

p. 2

Costs

No order as to costs appears in the judgment.

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 Court finds that there is no competent application before it.
p. 2Final orders - objection incompetent for want of a Reference
The next step is for the Objector to move the Court within 14 days after receipt of the reasons through a Chamber Summons, setting out the grounds for objection. This is normally called a Reference.
p. 2Procedure under Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The coram lists the advocate appearing for the advocate party by firm name ('For advocate Prof Tom Ojienda & Associates, Advocates'), leaving the individual counsel unnamed

minor

The judgment does not state the case number or file reference of the Objection before the Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Tom Ojienda & Associates v Nairobi City County Assembly (Miscellaneous Cause 113 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 963 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/963/eng@2025-03-27

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.