1. Through a Notice of Motion dated 30 th day of June, 2025, the Applicant seeks leave of the court to file a refence to the taxation made by the Taxing Master (Hon. F. Lesantos Larabi, Deputy Registrar) delivered on 7 th May, 2025, out of time.
2. That the honourable court do set aside the decision of the Taxing Officer awarding the Applicant Kshs.162,400/- and order the Bill be taxed afresh; and, the reference be deemed to be properly on record.
3. The application is premised on grounds that time within which to write to the Taxing Master objecting to the taxation and requiring reasons for the taxation to be given to enable the filing of the reference before Judge to challenge it has long expired.
4. That the delay in approaching the court to file a reference was occasioned by circumstances beyond the Applicant’s control being, obtaining a copy of the Ruling. That the giving of a notice to the Taxing Master for the items taxed is a pre-requisite step before the reference can be made before a Judge in Chambers. That the Taxing Master made several errors in principle while taxing the Bill of Costs for disallowing items 7 – 34 for lack of receipt yet correspondence receipts were attached; and, items 35 – 67 for lack of non-attendance receipts yet correspondence was attached. And, he also failed to give reasons for his decision.
5. The application is unopposed. The application is brought pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Renumeration) Order which provides thus;
(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.
(4)The High Court shall have power in its discretion by order to enlarge the time fixed by subparagraph (1) or subparagraph (2) for 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.
6. Essentially, the Applicant was supposed to file a Notice of Objection within 14 days of the decision of the Taxing Officer if he was dissatisfied. The stated objection had to be in writing. The decision of the Taxing Master was on 7 th May, 2025, therefore the time within which the Notice of Objection was to be filed was on 22 nd May, 2025, however, there was no compliance.
7. The delay in approaching the court to file a reference is stated to have been obtaining a copy of the Ruling. And for the reference to be made a notice to the Taxing Master was pre-requisite.
8. In Paul Wanjohi Mathenge v Duncan Gichane Mathenge [2013] eKLR the Court of Appeal stated that;
“Rule 4 is unfettered, but it has to be exercised judicially, not on whim, sympathy or caprice. I take note that in exercising my discretion I ought to be guided by consideration of the factors stated in previous decisions of this Court including, but not limited to, the period of delay, the reasons for the delay, the degree of prejudice to the respondent and interested parties if the application is granted..”
9. The application though dated 30 th June, 2025, was filed on 11 th December, 2025. Reasons for the delay are alleged to have been obtaining a copy of the Ruling which was beyond the Applicant’s control. The Ruling was delivered on 7 th May, 2026 and uploaded on the CTS on 9 th May, 2025. There was no payment and/or record indicating the Applicant requested for the Ruling.
10. On the question of prejudice to be suffered, having had a glimpse of the Ruling delivered by the Taxing Master, reasons were given for the decision which are plausible.
11. Further, I do take into consideration the Principles laid down in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC & 7 Others [2014] eKLR concerning the extension of time being an equitable remedy that is discretionary which calls for a reasonable explanation that is not prejudicial to the respondent being put forth.
12. The reason given for the delay was not satisfactorily explained to warrant grant of the order sought.
13. In the premises the application fails and is dismissed.
14. It is so ordered.
HCC MISC. APP. E046 OF 2024 (RUL.) Page 2 of 2
2. That the honourable court do set aside the decision of the Taxing Officer awarding the Applicant Kshs.162,400/- and order the Bill be taxed afresh; and, the reference be deemed to be properly on record.
3. The application is premised on grounds that time within which to write to the Taxing Master objecting to the taxation and requiring reasons for the taxation to be given to enable the filing of the reference before Judge to challenge it has long expired.
4. That the delay in approaching the court to file a reference was occasioned by circumstances beyond the Applicant’s control being, obtaining a copy of the Ruling. That the giving of a notice to the Taxing Master for the items taxed is a pre-requisite step before the reference can be made before a Judge in Chambers. That the Taxing Master made several errors in principle while taxing the Bill of Costs for disallowing items 7 – 34 for lack of receipt yet correspondence receipts were attached; and, items 35 – 67 for lack of non-attendance receipts yet correspondence was attached. And, he also failed to give reasons for his decision.
5. The application is unopposed. The application is brought pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Renumeration) Order which provides thus;
(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.
(4)The High Court shall have power in its discretion by order to enlarge the time fixed by subparagraph (1) or subparagraph (2) for 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.
6. Essentially, the Applicant was supposed to file a Notice of Objection within 14 days of the decision of the Taxing Officer if he was dissatisfied. The stated objection had to be in writing. The decision of the Taxing Master was on 7 th May, 2025, therefore the time within which the Notice of Objection was to be filed was on 22 nd May, 2025, however, there was no compliance.
7. The delay in approaching the court to file a reference is stated to have been obtaining a copy of the Ruling. And for the reference to be made a notice to the Taxing Master was pre-requisite.
8. In Paul Wanjohi Mathenge v Duncan Gichane Mathenge [2013] eKLR the Court of Appeal stated that;
“Rule 4 is unfettered, but it has to be exercised judicially, not on whim, sympathy or caprice. I take note that in exercising my discretion I ought to be guided by consideration of the factors stated in previous decisions of this Court including, but not limited to, the period of delay, the reasons for the delay, the degree of prejudice to the respondent and interested parties if the application is granted..”
9. The application though dated 30 th June, 2025, was filed on 11 th December, 2025. Reasons for the delay are alleged to have been obtaining a copy of the Ruling which was beyond the Applicant’s control. The Ruling was delivered on 7 th May, 2026 and uploaded on the CTS on 9 th May, 2025. There was no payment and/or record indicating the Applicant requested for the Ruling.
10. On the question of prejudice to be suffered, having had a glimpse of the Ruling delivered by the Taxing Master, reasons were given for the decision which are plausible.
11. Further, I do take into consideration the Principles laid down in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC & 7 Others [2014] eKLR concerning the extension of time being an equitable remedy that is discretionary which calls for a reasonable explanation that is not prejudicial to the respondent being put forth.
12. The reason given for the delay was not satisfactorily explained to warrant grant of the order sought.
13. In the premises the application fails and is dismissed.
14. It is so ordered.
HCC MISC. APP. E046 OF 2024 (RUL.) Page 2 of 2