1. This ruling is in respect of Chamber Summons application dated 6th February, 2025 seeking the following orders:
1) THAT the Honourable Court be pleased to set aside the ruling and order of Hon. Priscah Nyotah delivered, dated and signed on the 28th November, 2024 herein extend time and grant leave to the applicant herein to object to the said ruling to facilitate taxation of the advocate/client bill dated 15th December, 2022.
3) THAT the costs of this application be provided for.
3. Mr Gai further deponed that the ruling dismissed with costs the Advocate/Client bill dated 15th December, 2022, on the ground that the documents supporting the bill were not attached.
4. It was his deposition that they filed a list of documents and submissions dated 26th April, 2023, submitting on their grievance of the dismissal of the advocate/client bill. Counsel further stated that they filed an application for reinstatement dated 13th September, 2023, which application reinstated the Bill of costs for taxation.
5. Dan Odhiambo Okita filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 10th March, 2025, and deponed that any reference ought to have been brought within fourteen days with the last day of filing being 13th December, 2024, which was not done. He deponed that the application has been filed after more than forty-five days from the date of the ruling without any explanation. He prayed that the application be dismissed with costs.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS
6. Counsel for the Applicant filed submissions dated 23rd July, 2025, and submitted that a bill once filed must be taxed as that is the only way to bring closure to an advocate/client dispute. It was counsel’s submission that the bill was filed but not taxed. Further that there were documents supporting the bill and the reason for failing to tax the same was incorrect.
7. It was counsel’s submission that it is probable that the Honourable Court only checked the CTS system and not the physical file. Counsel relied on the case of M/s L.R Kipsang & Co Advocates vs Francis Kemei Kericho HC Misc No 29 of 2018 and urged the court to grant the orders sought.
RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS
8. Counsel for the Respondent filed submissions dated 14th June, 2025, and submitted that the application is an abuse of the court process and that the Applicant had filed a defective bill to the extent that it relied on provisions of law that were not applicable. Counsel submitted that the ruling date of 28th November, 2024 was issued in the presence of all the parties and the applicant chose not to appear.
9. Counsel submitted that the Respondent would be prejudiced as the applicant has not yet refunded him Ksh 50,000/= the amount he received and did not render a service but the Respondent is also incurring expenses in defending himself.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
10. The issue for determination is whether the applicant is entitled to the orders sought. It was the Applicant’s case that the ruling notice was not issued and only became aware that the same had been delivered on 17th December, 2024. The applicant deponed that the ruling dismissed with costs the Advocate/Client bill dated 15th December, 2022 as the documents supporting the bill were not attached.
11. Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order which 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.”
13. In the case of Otieno v Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited (Miscellaneous Civil Case E119 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 4963 (KLR) (25 April 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 4963 (KLR, the court stated as follows on the provisions of Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order:
“Litigation under paragraph 11 is progressive. It goes step by step. It starts with the step under paragraph 11(1), followed by paragraph 11(2), and then paragraph 11(3). Consequently, there can be no reference to the Judge of the High Court without the reasons given by the taxing officer, and the taxing officer cannot give reasons unless prompted under paragraph 11(1). It is the objection to the taxing officer which triggers the reference, much the same way that the decision of the Judge on the reference triggers the appeal to the Court of Appeal. A reference cannot be mounted under paragraph 11(2), by jumping the step in paragraph 11(1). I have seen the decisions in Matiri Mburu & Chepkemboi Advocates v Occidental Insurance Company Limited [2017] eKLR (Meoli, J) and David Anunda v John Karu (sued on his own capacity and as Chairman of Kileleshwa Githunguri Road Residents Association) & 2 others [2021] KEELC 1785 (KLR) (Ogutu-Mboya, J). I agree with them. The notice of objection, envisaged under paragraph 11(1) (2), is the foundation for the reference to the judge, and without it there can be no reference.
15. The Applicant’s application was not filed timeously to benefit from the court’s discretion, which must be exercised judiciously. In this case, the court is not satisfied that it can exercise its discretion in the Applicant’s favour.
16. I have considered the application, the submissions by counsel and find that the Application lacks merit and is therefore dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.