https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11505

Kapoor v Dominos Pizza Kenya Ltd t/a Dominos Pizza, Next Gen Mall (Civil Appeal E073 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 11505 (KLR) (Civ) (22 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11505 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Civil Civil Appeal E073 of 2022 MS Shariff, J July 22, 2026 Between Geeta Kapoor Appellant and Dominos Pizza Kenya Limited T/A Dominos Pizza, Next Gen Mall Respondent Ruling 1.In a nutshell, the background is that the Applicant's appeal was dismissed with costs to the Respondent on 4th April 2024. The Respondent then filed a Bill of Costs dated 27th September 2024. A taxation notice dated 26th February 2025 was emailed to the Applicant's advocates that same day, fixing taxation for 13th May 2025. 2.The ruling on the Bill of Costs was due on 19th June 2025 but was pushed to 28th June 2025. The Applicant says the matter was not listed that day and that no one informed them when the ruling would actually come out. 3.What is not in dispute is that the ruling was uploaded to the Judiciary's Case Tracking System (CTS) on 4th July 2025, taxing the bill at Kshs. 207,838/=. Also not in dispute is that the Applicant's advocates were still actively involved in the taxation right up to that point, having filed submissions opposing the bill on 12th June 2025, a fact recorded in the ruling itself. 4.Geeta Kapoor ("the Applicant") has filed a Chamber Summons dated 13th October 2025. She wants the Court to let her file a reference late, challenging the Taxing Officer's decision of 4th July 2025. She also craves for orders of setting aside of that decision, and the taxed costs of Kshs. 207,838/=. It is her further prayer that the Bill of Costs be taxed de novo by a different Taxing Officer; and that execution be stayed in the meantime. The application is supported by an affidavit from her advocate, George Mahugu, sworn on 13th October 2025. 5.Dominos Pizza Kenya Limited ("the Respondent") opposes the application, through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 17th February 2026 by its advocate, June Njoki. Both sides also filed written submissions, which I have read. 6.In a nutshell, the background is that the Applicant's appeal was dismissed with costs to the Respondent on 4th April 2024. The Respondent then filed a Bill of Costs dated 27th September 2024. A taxation notice dated 26th February 2025 was emailed to the Applicant's advocates that same day, fixing taxation for 13th May 2025. 7.The ruling on the Bill of Costs was due on 19th June 2025 but was pushed to 28th June 2025. The Applicant says the matter was not listed that day and that no one informed them when the ruling would actually come out. 8.What is not in dispute is that the ruling was uploaded to the Judiciary's Case Tracking System (CTS) on 4th July 2025, taxing the bill at Kshs. 207,838/=. Also not in dispute is that the Applicant's advocates were still actively involved in the taxation right up to that point, having filed submissions opposing the bill on 12th June 2025, a fact recorded in the ruling itself. 9.This application was subsequently filed on 13th October 2025 just over three months after the ruling. 10.The Applicant’s urge that they genuinely did not know when the ruling would be delivered, that no one had directed that it would appear on the CTS, and that this fully explains the delay. They also urge that the Taxing Officer made two errors: allowing a getting-up fee without the matter being certified as complex, and allowing VAT on what is a party-and-party bill. 11.The Respondent on the other hand urges that a taxation notice was properly served, that the court had directed the ruling would come out on the CTS, that it was counsel's job to check the CTS, that the ruling was in any case communicated to the Applicant's advocates, that nearly three months is too long to have waited, and that the application never says which specific items were wrongly taxed. 12.The rule that governs this application is Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. It stipulates:“(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)……….(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. 14.Sub-rule (4) lets the Court extend either period. That power is wide, but it still has to be used judiciously, not automatically. In Esther Wangari Kamau v Kanuri Zakayo & Another [2019] KEHC 3158 (KLR), the court said:“The court's jurisdiction to enlarge time is extremely wide, and correctly so, in order to pre-empt the technicality of lateness from becoming the bedrock for denial of substantive justice. ...It is generally unsafe to deny a party the right to be heard in matters involving late filing except in exceptional circumstances or for well-grounded reasons. Such reasons could include: where the delay is so inordinate or inexplicable even to a reasonable person considering the issue; ..." 15.In Paul Wanjohi Mathenge v Duncan Gichane Mathenge [2013], the Court of Appeal said:“The discretion under 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, and whether the matter raises issues of public importance." 16.Applying these principles, I am of the view that the delay by the applicant herein is long. Three months delay is a lot against a clear 14-day rule. The Applicant's explanation, at best, covers why they may have missed the mention on 28th June 2025. It says nothing about why it then took a further three months to file this application. 17.It matters, too, that the Applicant's advocates were actively opposing the bill right up to 12th June 2025. They clearly knew a ruling was coming. That means they had a duty to keep track of it through the CTS, or simply by asking the Respondent's advocates or the registry. Saying "nobody told us" is not, by itself, enough to explain away a three-month delay. 18.The Applicant also has not shown that their intended reference has real prospects of success. The affidavit filed speaks only of "fundamental errors" in general terms. It does not name a single item she objects to. The two specific complaints, about the getting-up fee and VAT, appear for the first time in the submissions and not in their affidavit. Submissions are not evidence, so they cannot fill that gap. 19.Finally, the Respondent won this appeal back in April 2024 and has already been through a full taxation process that ended in July 2025; it is entitled to see this matter come to an end, any further delay would prejudice it. 20.Weighing all this, the length of the delay, the thin explanation for it, the lack of any demonstrated merit in the intended reference, lack of issuance of any notice to the taxing master within the prescribed 14 days and the prejudice to the Respondent, I am not persuaded that time should be extended. 21.The Chamber Summons dated 13th October 2025 is consequently dismissed. Costs to the Respondent. 22.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY 2026.M. SHARIFFJUDGE