RULING
1. The client/ applicant filed the notice of motion dated 18.7.2025 seeking review, variation or setting aside the taxing officer’s ruling dated 25.2.2025 and the certificate of taxation dated 27.2.2025. He also seeks in the alternative, leave to file an objection and a taxation reference against the taxation ruling out of time.
2. The application is brought under order 45 Rule 1, 2 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act, section 45 (6) of the Advocates Act and Rule 11 (4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
3. The application is supported by the client’s affidavit sworn on 18.7.2025 and written submissions dated 25.11.2025.
4. The client deposed that he and his wife, Josephine Muteru Watetu, are co-directors of Excellent Logistics Limited. He deposed that on 30.4.2024, they engaged the advocate to represent them in Insolvency Causes Numbers E032 and E033 of 2024.
5. The client also deposed that the respondent confirmed in writing that the legal fees for the services would be Kshs. 500,000/- translating to Kshs. 1,000,000/- plus VAT. It was agreed that he would deposit Kshs. 250,000/-. He initially paid Kshs. 50,000/- through mpesa on 30.4.2024. Between 3.6.2024 and 17.10.2024, they paid Kshs. 200,000/-.
6. The client complained that despite the agreement on legal fees and the payment of the deposit, the advocate began to demand more money and threatened not to attend court; unilaterally issued the unsigned revised fee note of 23.9.2024 revising the fee upwards to Kshs. 2,000,000/-; when he indicated that he was not agreeable, the advocate filed two separate applications to cease acting for them despite payment of the deposit; demanded for payment of the Kshs. 2,000,000//- for him to withdraw the applications to cease acting.
Grounds
7. The main grounds in support of the application are that: -
(1) the taxing officer has no jurisdiction to tax the bill of costs as there exists a valid agreement for fees between the parties hence the taxation ruling and certificate of costs are null and void ab initio;
(2) failure to lodge the notice of objection was unintentional and justifiable as it was due to attempted negotiations had with a view to reach a compromise.
(3) the delay is not inordinate or inexplicable.
(4) there will be no prejudice suffered by the respondent if the extension is granted.
8. The client relied on Nzaku & Nzaku Advocates v Tabitha Waithera Mararo as Trustee of TNK (Minor) & others [2020] eKLR on the elements of a section 45 agreement; Corporate Insurance Company Limited v Kang’ethe and Mola Advocates [2021] KEHC 5650 (KLR) to the effect that the taxing officer lack jurisdiction where the advocate and client have entered into a valid section 45 fee agreement.
9. The client relied on Adopt A Light Limited v Ochieng’, Ongango, Kibet & Ohaga Advocates [2016] KECA 387 where the Court of Appeal found that there was a legal fee agreement based on a letter from an advocate.
10. On the rules for interpretation of statutes, the client relied on Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edition (reissue), Butterworths, 1995, Vol. 44 (1), para. 1372 and Cusack v Harrow London Borough Council (2013) 4 ALL ER 97.
11. The client also relied on Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others [2014] eKLR on the principles for enlargement of time.
Response
12. The advocate/ respondent opposed the application through a replying affidavit sworn by a partner in the firm, Nicholas Karanja on 1.9.2025 and written submissions dated 12.2.2026.
13. The advocate’s key contentions are: -
(1) It lawfully exercised its right under section 48 of the Advocates Act and the Aro to file a bill of costs for taxation for services rendered to the client in Insolvency Cause Numbers E032 and E033 of 2024.
(2) The taxing officer taxed the costs at a fair, reasonable and proportionate amount of Kshs. 2,047.597.54.
(3) The client’s request for an extension to file an objection or reference lacks merit and his claim of illness is vague and unsupported by credible evidence.
(4) The client’s grounds for seeking review, variation or setting aside of the taxation ruling are legally untenable.
(5) No written fee agreement, as required under section 45 of the Advocates Act was ever executed between the advocate and the client. This is because the fee notes lack requisite signatures and mutual execution.
(6) Reliance of Kshs. 500,000 is misconceived as a fee note is merely a demand for payment and does not satisfy the statutory requirements of a fee agreement.
(7) Revised fee note dated 23.9.2024 for Kshs. 2,000,000 reflects the scope of services rendered.
14. To support the argument that the fee notes were unilateral documents it issued and not a binding fee agreement, the advocate relied on Executive Super Rides Limited v Kibati & Co. Advocates [2021] KEELC 2620 (KLR) and Oyomba Mosota & Wamwea Advocates v Michelle Nirenstein & Mara Napa Camps [2025] KEELC 4983 (KLR).
15. The advocate also relied on Miller & Company Advocates v China Road & Bridge Corporation [2024] KEHC 1773 (KLR) to the effect that a fee note alone does not oust taxation jurisdiction unless it complies with section 45; GM Gamma Advocates LLP v Board of Trustees of the National Social Security Fund [2025] KEELC 5965 (KLR) that partial payment of deposit is not acceptance of a fixed sum.
16. The advocate contended that Adopt A Light Limited v Ochieng’, Onyango, Kibet & Ohaga Advocates [supra] and Corporate Insurance Company Limited v Kang’ethe & Mola Advocates [supra] are distinguishable as in the former, there was clear evidence of mutual intent via a signed letter and in the latter, full payment of a fee note.
17. The advocate relied on Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others [2014] eKLR to submit that the court’s exercise of discretion to extend time requires reasonable explanation for delay.
18. The advocate added that the delay of 5 months is inordinate and that the annexed medical records lack specificity on how it prevented timely objection. It relied on Nzaku t/a Nzaku & Nzaku Advocates v Mboroki [2025] KEHC 8945 (KLR) where the court dismissed a similar application for lack of merit where no valid agreement existed and delays were unjustified.
Analysis and Determination
Whether the client has met the threshold for enlargement of time to file a reference
19. Para. 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order provides that: -
“(1) Should any party object to the decision of the taxing officer, he may within fourteen days after the decision give notice in writing to the taxing officer of the items of taxation to which he objects.
(2) The taxing officer shall forthwith record and forward to the objector the reasons for his decision on those items and the objector may within fourteen days from the receipt of the reasons apply to a judge by chamber summons, which shall be served on all the parties concerned, setting out the grounds of his objection.
(3) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the judge upon any objection referred to such judge under subsection (2) may, with the leave of the judge but not otherwise, appeal to the Court of Appeal.
(4) The High Court shall have power in its discretion by order to enlarge the time fixed by subparagraph (1) or subparagraph (2) far the taking of any step; application for such an order may be made by chamber summons upon giving to every other interested party not less than three clear days’ notice in writing or as the Court may direct, and may be so made notwithstanding that the time sought to be enlarged may have already expired.”
20. A party who comes to court seeking extension of time should discharge ‘the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court’ that he deser4ves the extension. Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others [supra], Ashmore v Corp of Lloyd’s [1992] All ER 486
21. A plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay is the key that unlocks the court’s flow of discretionary favour. Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] eKLR
22. Yet, nonetheless, the court should be careful to gauge any prejudice that the respondent may suffer if the extension is granted. Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others [supra],
23. The taxation ruling is dated 25.2.2025. The client ought to have filed its notice of objection or reference application within 14 days after the ruling date, on or about 11.3.2025.
24. However, it filed the present application dated 18.7.2025, four months and seven days after the deadline.
25. The delay is inordinate.
26. The client’s explanation for the delay is that he was unable to follow upon the matter as his wife fell ill prior to the taxation and ever since his primary concern was her health. He stated that due to his continued absence from the office, he could not avail to his advocates the agreed fee notes so that they could object to the taxation within the 14-day period.
27. The client indicated that he was nevertheless in communication with the respondent advocate as he tried to resolve the issue of the fees amicably. He faulted the respondent advocate for indicating his openness to negotiations but thereafter demanding payment of Kshs. 3,000,000/-.
28. I have considered the evidence. The client exhibited his wife’s medical records. They show that the client’s wife was indeed ill and even admitted into hospital several times during the period in question.
29. The client also exhibited a thread of messages between the client and the advocate from 28.2.2028 to 5.5.2025 which was during the period after the ruling was delivered and the statutory window for filing a notice of objection or a reference.
30. I accept that the illness was genuine and may have imposed considerable emotional and personal demands on the client. I express my sympathy.
31. However, the evidence shows that the client was engaged in negotiations with the respondent advocate during the period in question.
32. This evidence undermines the explanation given as it shows that the client could negotiate and even issue instructions to his advocates.
33. Thus, I find that the client has not given a sufficient reason for the delay.
34. The threshold in of ‘a plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay’ has not been met as to unlock the court’s flow of discretionary favour. Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] eKLR
35. In the end, I am not satisfied that the client has laid a basis for enlargement of time to file the reference.
36. The application dated 18.7.2025 is dismissed with no order as to costs given the circumstances of the case.
Dated, signed and delivered through Microsoft Teams online application this 3th day of July, 2026
--------------------
F. Gikonyo M
Judge
In the presence of: -
Mitei for Applicant
No appearance by Respondent
CA- Ivan/Aggrey
1. The client/ applicant filed the notice of motion dated 18.7.2025 seeking review, variation or setting aside the taxing officer’s ruling dated 25.2.2025 and the certificate of taxation dated 27.2.2025. He also seeks in the alternative, leave to file an objection and a taxation reference against the taxation ruling out of time.
2. The application is brought under order 45 Rule 1, 2 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act, section 45 (6) of the Advocates Act and Rule 11 (4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
3. The application is supported by the client’s affidavit sworn on 18.7.2025 and written submissions dated 25.11.2025.
4. The client deposed that he and his wife, Josephine Muteru Watetu, are co-directors of Excellent Logistics Limited. He deposed that on 30.4.2024, they engaged the advocate to represent them in Insolvency Causes Numbers E032 and E033 of 2024.
5. The client also deposed that the respondent confirmed in writing that the legal fees for the services would be Kshs. 500,000/- translating to Kshs. 1,000,000/- plus VAT. It was agreed that he would deposit Kshs. 250,000/-. He initially paid Kshs. 50,000/- through mpesa on 30.4.2024. Between 3.6.2024 and 17.10.2024, they paid Kshs. 200,000/-.
6. The client complained that despite the agreement on legal fees and the payment of the deposit, the advocate began to demand more money and threatened not to attend court; unilaterally issued the unsigned revised fee note of 23.9.2024 revising the fee upwards to Kshs. 2,000,000/-; when he indicated that he was not agreeable, the advocate filed two separate applications to cease acting for them despite payment of the deposit; demanded for payment of the Kshs. 2,000,000//- for him to withdraw the applications to cease acting.
Grounds
7. The main grounds in support of the application are that: -
(1) the taxing officer has no jurisdiction to tax the bill of costs as there exists a valid agreement for fees between the parties hence the taxation ruling and certificate of costs are null and void ab initio;
(2) failure to lodge the notice of objection was unintentional and justifiable as it was due to attempted negotiations had with a view to reach a compromise.
(3) the delay is not inordinate or inexplicable.
(4) there will be no prejudice suffered by the respondent if the extension is granted.
8. The client relied on Nzaku & Nzaku Advocates v Tabitha Waithera Mararo as Trustee of TNK (Minor) & others [2020] eKLR on the elements of a section 45 agreement; Corporate Insurance Company Limited v Kang’ethe and Mola Advocates [2021] KEHC 5650 (KLR) to the effect that the taxing officer lack jurisdiction where the advocate and client have entered into a valid section 45 fee agreement.
9. The client relied on Adopt A Light Limited v Ochieng’, Ongango, Kibet & Ohaga Advocates [2016] KECA 387 where the Court of Appeal found that there was a legal fee agreement based on a letter from an advocate.
10. On the rules for interpretation of statutes, the client relied on Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edition (reissue), Butterworths, 1995, Vol. 44 (1), para. 1372 and Cusack v Harrow London Borough Council (2013) 4 ALL ER 97.
11. The client also relied on Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others [2014] eKLR on the principles for enlargement of time.
Response
12. The advocate/ respondent opposed the application through a replying affidavit sworn by a partner in the firm, Nicholas Karanja on 1.9.2025 and written submissions dated 12.2.2026.
13. The advocate’s key contentions are: -
(1) It lawfully exercised its right under section 48 of the Advocates Act and the Aro to file a bill of costs for taxation for services rendered to the client in Insolvency Cause Numbers E032 and E033 of 2024.
(2) The taxing officer taxed the costs at a fair, reasonable and proportionate amount of Kshs. 2,047.597.54.
(3) The client’s request for an extension to file an objection or reference lacks merit and his claim of illness is vague and unsupported by credible evidence.
(4) The client’s grounds for seeking review, variation or setting aside of the taxation ruling are legally untenable.
(5) No written fee agreement, as required under section 45 of the Advocates Act was ever executed between the advocate and the client. This is because the fee notes lack requisite signatures and mutual execution.
(6) Reliance of Kshs. 500,000 is misconceived as a fee note is merely a demand for payment and does not satisfy the statutory requirements of a fee agreement.
(7) Revised fee note dated 23.9.2024 for Kshs. 2,000,000 reflects the scope of services rendered.
14. To support the argument that the fee notes were unilateral documents it issued and not a binding fee agreement, the advocate relied on Executive Super Rides Limited v Kibati & Co. Advocates [2021] KEELC 2620 (KLR) and Oyomba Mosota & Wamwea Advocates v Michelle Nirenstein & Mara Napa Camps [2025] KEELC 4983 (KLR).
15. The advocate also relied on Miller & Company Advocates v China Road & Bridge Corporation [2024] KEHC 1773 (KLR) to the effect that a fee note alone does not oust taxation jurisdiction unless it complies with section 45; GM Gamma Advocates LLP v Board of Trustees of the National Social Security Fund [2025] KEELC 5965 (KLR) that partial payment of deposit is not acceptance of a fixed sum.
16. The advocate contended that Adopt A Light Limited v Ochieng’, Onyango, Kibet & Ohaga Advocates [supra] and Corporate Insurance Company Limited v Kang’ethe & Mola Advocates [supra] are distinguishable as in the former, there was clear evidence of mutual intent via a signed letter and in the latter, full payment of a fee note.
17. The advocate relied on Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others [2014] eKLR to submit that the court’s exercise of discretion to extend time requires reasonable explanation for delay.
18. The advocate added that the delay of 5 months is inordinate and that the annexed medical records lack specificity on how it prevented timely objection. It relied on Nzaku t/a Nzaku & Nzaku Advocates v Mboroki [2025] KEHC 8945 (KLR) where the court dismissed a similar application for lack of merit where no valid agreement existed and delays were unjustified.
Analysis and Determination
Whether the client has met the threshold for enlargement of time to file a reference
19. Para. 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order provides that: -
“(1) Should any party object to the decision of the taxing officer, he may within fourteen days after the decision give notice in writing to the taxing officer of the items of taxation to which he objects.
(2) The taxing officer shall forthwith record and forward to the objector the reasons for his decision on those items and the objector may within fourteen days from the receipt of the reasons apply to a judge by chamber summons, which shall be served on all the parties concerned, setting out the grounds of his objection.
(3) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the judge upon any objection referred to such judge under subsection (2) may, with the leave of the judge but not otherwise, appeal to the Court of Appeal.
(4) The High Court shall have power in its discretion by order to enlarge the time fixed by subparagraph (1) or subparagraph (2) far the taking of any step; application for such an order may be made by chamber summons upon giving to every other interested party not less than three clear days’ notice in writing or as the Court may direct, and may be so made notwithstanding that the time sought to be enlarged may have already expired.”
20. A party who comes to court seeking extension of time should discharge ‘the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court’ that he deser4ves the extension. Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others [supra], Ashmore v Corp of Lloyd’s [1992] All ER 486
21. A plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay is the key that unlocks the court’s flow of discretionary favour. Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] eKLR
22. Yet, nonetheless, the court should be careful to gauge any prejudice that the respondent may suffer if the extension is granted. Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others [supra],
23. The taxation ruling is dated 25.2.2025. The client ought to have filed its notice of objection or reference application within 14 days after the ruling date, on or about 11.3.2025.
24. However, it filed the present application dated 18.7.2025, four months and seven days after the deadline.
25. The delay is inordinate.
26. The client’s explanation for the delay is that he was unable to follow upon the matter as his wife fell ill prior to the taxation and ever since his primary concern was her health. He stated that due to his continued absence from the office, he could not avail to his advocates the agreed fee notes so that they could object to the taxation within the 14-day period.
27. The client indicated that he was nevertheless in communication with the respondent advocate as he tried to resolve the issue of the fees amicably. He faulted the respondent advocate for indicating his openness to negotiations but thereafter demanding payment of Kshs. 3,000,000/-.
28. I have considered the evidence. The client exhibited his wife’s medical records. They show that the client’s wife was indeed ill and even admitted into hospital several times during the period in question.
29. The client also exhibited a thread of messages between the client and the advocate from 28.2.2028 to 5.5.2025 which was during the period after the ruling was delivered and the statutory window for filing a notice of objection or a reference.
30. I accept that the illness was genuine and may have imposed considerable emotional and personal demands on the client. I express my sympathy.
31. However, the evidence shows that the client was engaged in negotiations with the respondent advocate during the period in question.
32. This evidence undermines the explanation given as it shows that the client could negotiate and even issue instructions to his advocates.
33. Thus, I find that the client has not given a sufficient reason for the delay.
34. The threshold in of ‘a plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay’ has not been met as to unlock the court’s flow of discretionary favour. Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] eKLR
35. In the end, I am not satisfied that the client has laid a basis for enlargement of time to file the reference.
36. The application dated 18.7.2025 is dismissed with no order as to costs given the circumstances of the case.
Dated, signed and delivered through Microsoft Teams online application this 3th day of July, 2026
--------------------
F. Gikonyo M
Judge
In the presence of: -
Mitei for Applicant
No appearance by Respondent
CA- Ivan/Aggrey