https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4390

Njuguna (Sued as the Legal Representative of Eunice Muthoni Njuguna) & another v Njuguna & 7 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4390 (KLR) (8 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4390 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nyahururu Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E006 of 2025 LN Mbugua, J July 8, 2026 Between Pauline Njeri Njuguna (Sued as the Legal Representative of Eunice Muthoni Njuguna) 1st Applicant Daniel Mwangi Marigi 2nd Applicant and Peter Mucheru Njuguna 1st Respondent Samuel Wainaina Njuguna 2nd Respondent Mary Mwihaki Nyoro 3rd Respondent Paul Njuguna Waithera 4th Respondent Beatrice Mukuhe Njuguna 5th Respondent Mary Wanjiku Kabugi 6th Respondent Hannah Kahaki Mucheru 7th Respondent David Kariuki 8th Respondent Judgment 1.This miscellaneous suit was filed by way of a chamber summons application dated 11.12.2025 where the applicants seek the following orders;1.Spent2.That pending the hearing and determination of the application herein, this Honourable court be pleased to issue an interim order staying execution of the Taxation Ruling of the Hon. M. W. Njuguna (Deputy Registrar) delivered on the 12th November, 2025 without notice.3.That this Honourable court be pleased to grant the respondents/applicants leave to file a Taxation Reference out of time against the Ruling of Hon. M. W. Njuguna (Deputy Registrar) delivered on the 12th November, 2025 in relation to the applicants/respondents’ party and party Bill of Costs dated the 11th March, 2025.4.That in the alternative to prayer 3, this Honourable court be pleased to set aside the ex-parte proceedings and Ruling in this cause.5.That the costs of this application be provided for.” 2.The application is premised on grounds on the face of the application and on the supporting affidavit of Loise Wairimu Kagucia, the advocate for the applicants. She depones that her firm was in conduct of the suit Nyahururu ELC petition 2 of 2017 ( formerly Nakuru Petition 26 of 2013) on behalf of the petitioners of which the suit was dismissed with costs to the respondents via a judgment delivered on 23.10.2018. 3.That the respondents counsel filed a party & party bill of costs dated 11.3.2025 irregularly which bill was served upon the deponent together with a notice of taxation dated 29.5.2025 requiring attendance on 4.6.2025. That the firms’ counsel, one Njoki attended court, but found that the matter was not in the day’s cause list and the file had not been availed to the court. Both counsels were told to return at noon for a clear position. In the afternoon, the court informed counsels that the file had not been found and that a mention notice would be issued once the file was located. 4.To their surprise, the respondents served them with a letter dated 5.12.2025 enclosing a ruling of 19.11.2025 in which the bill of costs had been taxed at sh.785 560. Counsel avers that since 4.6.2025, they had not been served with any mention notice, thus the exparte proceedings were wrongly conducted. The applicants contend that they intend to challenge the aforementioned ruling whereby the amounts awarded on several items were excessive. 5.The applicants argue that they were not aware of the ruling, hence their inability to comply with the provisions of rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014. 6.The respondents opposed the suit vide the Replying Affidavit of Pauline Njeri Njuguna, the 1st respondent sworn on 18.2.2026. They contend that the applicants were duly served with the notice of taxation vide their last known email address, of which no response was filed. It is argued that the applicants were well aware of the taxation proceedings, thus the taxation ruling should not be set aside. 7.In a supplementary affidavit of the applicant dated 12.3.2026, the advocate avers that upon checking their official email, it came to the realization that indeed the notice of taxation had been emailed to them but the same went unnoticed and obscured by other incoming emails. 8.I have considered the rival arguments and submissions. The issue for consideration is whether leave should be granted to the applicant to file a taxation reference out of time against the ruling of Honorable Njuguna, the taxing officer. 9.Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party, at the discretion of the Court. A party who seeks extension of time has the burden of laying a basis, to the satisfaction of the Court as was held in the case of Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others , SC Application No 16 of 2014; [2014] eKLR. 10.The applicant’s case turns on one issue, that the taxation proceedings were conducted exparte as they had not been served. It was only after the Replying Affidavit was filed pointing out how service was effected that the applicant conceded that service was indeed effected but the email went unnoticed. The court records indicate that when the matter was called out before the taxing officer on 1.10.2025, the court was satisfied that service had been effected. In that regard, the applicant has not tabled sufficient grounds to challenge the exparte proceedings which culminated in the ruling of 12.11.2025. 11.In the circumstances, I find that the application dated 11.12.2025 is not merited, the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NYAHURURU THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:Nancy Mwangi – C/ANjambi for applicantWaiganjo for respondent - absent