' Background and Introduction
1. I have carefully considered the application dated 5th June 2025, together with the affidavits filed in opposition thereto, and the written submissions furnished by both parties. The applicant prayers for enlargement of time to enable it to file a reference against the ruling of the Taxing Officer delivered on 5th May 2025.
Analysis and Determination
2. Paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order prescribes a timeline of 14 days within which a party may lodge a reference against a decision made by a Taxing Officer. However, paragraph 11(4) grants this Court wide discretion including the discretion to enlarge that period upon good cause shown. The principles guiding the exercise of such discretion are well established and articulated in the case of Nick Salat v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 7 Others (2014) eKLR, where the Supreme Court emphasized that:
“Discretion to extend time is indeed unfettered but it is incumbent upon the applicant to explain the reasons for delay in making the application for extension and whether there were extenuating circumstances that could enable the Court to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant”.
3. In the present case, it is evident from the record that the applicant was present when the taxation ruling was delivered and even requested a stay of execution for 30 days, which was granted. Additionally, there is attached correspondence from the respondent, reminding the applicant to settle the taxed costs. The correspondence was not responded to, and the applicant does not deny receipt. The only explanation offered for the delay in meeting the prescribed timelines is that internal consultations and approvals were necessary, given the applicant’s status as a corporate entity.
4. Although the applicant has not supported its reason for the delay with concrete evidence, the explanation provided, namely, that the delay was due to circumstances beyond its control, is not far-fetched or improbable. The delay of about 40 days, from 5th May 2025 to 5th July 2025 when this application was made, under the circumstances, does not appear to be inordinate or indicative of bad faith. It is a relatively short period, especially in the context of procedural timelines, and does not suggest any deliberate or malicious intent to delay the process.
Conclusion
5. Accordingly, and having considered that the delay was minimal and not occasioned by any willful default, I hereby exercise my discretion to enlarge the time for filing the reference. This decision aligns with the overarching principles of justice, fairness, and the proper adjudication of the issues in dispute.
Orders
i. The application dated 5th June 2025 is hereby granted.
ii. Costs shall abide the outcome of the reference.
'
1. I have carefully considered the application dated 5th June 2025, together with the affidavits filed in opposition thereto, and the written submissions furnished by both parties. The applicant prayers for enlargement of time to enable it to file a reference against the ruling of the Taxing Officer delivered on 5th May 2025.
Analysis and Determination
2. Paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order prescribes a timeline of 14 days within which a party may lodge a reference against a decision made by a Taxing Officer. However, paragraph 11(4) grants this Court wide discretion including the discretion to enlarge that period upon good cause shown. The principles guiding the exercise of such discretion are well established and articulated in the case of Nick Salat v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 7 Others (2014) eKLR, where the Supreme Court emphasized that:
“Discretion to extend time is indeed unfettered but it is incumbent upon the applicant to explain the reasons for delay in making the application for extension and whether there were extenuating circumstances that could enable the Court to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant”.
3. In the present case, it is evident from the record that the applicant was present when the taxation ruling was delivered and even requested a stay of execution for 30 days, which was granted. Additionally, there is attached correspondence from the respondent, reminding the applicant to settle the taxed costs. The correspondence was not responded to, and the applicant does not deny receipt. The only explanation offered for the delay in meeting the prescribed timelines is that internal consultations and approvals were necessary, given the applicant’s status as a corporate entity.
4. Although the applicant has not supported its reason for the delay with concrete evidence, the explanation provided, namely, that the delay was due to circumstances beyond its control, is not far-fetched or improbable. The delay of about 40 days, from 5th May 2025 to 5th July 2025 when this application was made, under the circumstances, does not appear to be inordinate or indicative of bad faith. It is a relatively short period, especially in the context of procedural timelines, and does not suggest any deliberate or malicious intent to delay the process.
Conclusion
5. Accordingly, and having considered that the delay was minimal and not occasioned by any willful default, I hereby exercise my discretion to enlarge the time for filing the reference. This decision aligns with the overarching principles of justice, fairness, and the proper adjudication of the issues in dispute.
Orders
i. The application dated 5th June 2025 is hereby granted.
ii. Costs shall abide the outcome of the reference.
'