https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3467

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NYAHURURU** **ELCL MISC NO. E001 OF 2026** **MARGARET NDUTA KARANJA………………………….APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **WAICHUNGO MARTIN P/A WAICHUNGO MARTIN AND CO. ADVOCATES ……………..…………………RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. Before me is a chamber summons application dated 30.10.2025 where the applicant, Margaret Nduta seeks the following orders; **“1. This Honourable court enlarges the time within which to file a reference out of the decision by the Taxing Officer delivered on 12th February 2025.** **2. There be a stay of execution of the certificate of taxation arising out of the ruling on taxation of costs on this matter delivered on 12th February 2025.** **3. There be a stay of proceedings pending the hearing and determination of this application and the reference thereof, in MCCC/E046/2025 WAICHUNGO MARTIN P/A WAICHUNGO MARTIN AND CO ADVOCATES VS MARGARET NDUTA KARANJA.** **4. That the cost for this application be provided for”** 1. The application is premised on grounds on the face of the application and the supporting affidavit of the applicant. She avers that the respondent filed a bill of cost on 16.7.2024 before the Deputy Registrar, of which the applicant filed a replying affidavit dated 2.12.2024 opposing some items. The Deputy Registrar taxed the bill on 12.2.2025 at sh. 228 000 where her replying affidavit was not considered. That in good faith, the applicant filed an application for review and stay of execution, but the same was dismissed on. 2. That the respondent has since filed a suit **MCCC/E046/2025 WAICHUNGO MARTIN T/A WAICHUNGO MARTIN AND CO ADVOCATES VS MARGARET NDUTA KARANJA** seeking to enforce the certificate of costs. However, the applicant now desires to properly challenge the taxed bill of costs. 3. In her submissions, the applicant avers that her right to be heard under Article 50 of the Constitution was violated as her replying affidavit was not taken into consideration, adding that she is ready to prosecute the reference expeditiously. She relies on the case of **Morgan Air Cargo Limited v Everest Enterprises Limited (2014) eKLR** to buttress the point that an award of costs is not cast in stones. 4. The respondent opposes the application vide his replying affidavit dated 18.11.2025 where it is argued that no reasons were given as to why there was a delay in filing the reference, that the issue of a stay was dealt with in **Nyahururu M,C,C,C, E046 of 2025** vide a ruling of 15.10.2025, adding that judgment has already been entered in the said case. It is further argued that the application is resjudicata as a similar application was filed on 10.3.2025. 5. In his submissions, the respondent has reiterated the averments set out in his replying affidavit, adding that the application has not met the threshold for enlargement of time. To this end, the case of **Charles Munge v Peter Icharia Munge & Another 2015 KECA 514 (KLR)** was proffered. 6. I have considered the rival arguments. On the question of enlargement of time, I make reference to the provisions of **Order 11 Rule 4 of the Advocates Remuneration Order** which stipulates that; **“ 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”** 1. The grant or refusal of an extension of time is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised, not subjectively or at whim or by rigid rule of thumb, but in a principled manner in accordance with reason and justice. See- **Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others [2014] eKLR.** 2. In **Parmuati Oloishuru Kore v Eric Ntabo and Co. Advocates [2019] eKLR** the court stated that in matters exercise of discretion the court has to consider the length of the delay and the reasons for such a delay, whether the applicant could suffer substantial loss and the degree of prejudice that may occur, also see **Leon Ojiambo Ojian & another v Lilian Mushele Wafula & another (supra).** 3. In the matter at hand, the applicant has given an account of how she embarked on challenging the decision of the taxing officer through an application dated 11.3.2025 which was dismissed on 22.10.2025. The applicant filed the current application a week or so thereafter, thus she has given plausible explanation for the delay. 4. On stay, I take it that the concern of the applicant is on execution of costs. Thus, even if the judgment in the case of **MCCC/E046/2025** has been delivered, execution can still be halted. However, on costs, the applicant will bear the costs of this miscellaneous suit as she ought to have been more vigilant after the delivery of the ruling on 12.2.2025. 5. In the end, I allow the application dated 30.10.2025 in the following terms; 6. **Time is hereby enlarged for the applicant to file a Reference within 14 days from the date of this Ruling failure to which the orders given herein shall lapse.** 7. **An order of stay of execution on costs is hereby granted for a period of 4 months.** 8. **The Costs of this miscellaneous suit shall be borne by the Applicant in favour of the Respondent.** **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NYAHURURU THIS 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2026 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.** **LUCY N. MBUGUA** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** **Bedan C/A** **Gakuru for the Applicant** **Gaken ia for the Respondent**