https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3845

Cherotich (Donee) (Suing on behalf of Edwin Kabuiywa Mamit) v DC Ngeno & Company Advocates (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3845 (KLR) (18 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3845 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kericho Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E013 of 2025 LA Omollo, J June 18, 2026 Between Roseline Cherotich (Donee) (Suing On Behalf Of Edwin Kabuiywa Mamit) Applicant and DC Ngeno & Company Advocates Respondent Ruling Introduction. 1.This ruling is in respect of the Applicant’s Chamber Summons application dated 24th November, 2025. It is expressed to be brought under Sections 3A & 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, Rule 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order and Schedule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order 2014. 2.The application seeks the following orders;a.Spentb.Spentc.That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant the Applicant leave to file a Reference out of time against the Ruling of the Taxing Officer delivered on 29th April, 2025.d.That the instant reference challenging the said taxation be deemed as duly filed upon grant of leave.e.That in the alternative, this Honourable Court do grant the Applicant such further or other orders as may meet the ends of justice.f.That the costs of this application be in the cause. 3.The application is based on the grounds on its face and the supporting affidavit of Roseline Cherotich that is sworn on 24th November, 2025. Factual Background. 4.The Applicant commenced the present proceedings vide the Chamber Summons application dated 22nd May, 2025 where she sought the following prayers;a.That this application be certified as urgent and service of the same be dispensed with in the first instance.b.That pending hearing and determination of this application inter-partes, there be stay of execution of the entire decision of the Learned Principal Magistrate F.M Nyakundi dated 29th April, 2025 in the Kericho Chief Magistrate Misc. Application No. E001 of 2025, DC Ngeno & Company Advocates versus Roseline Cherotich.c.That the entire decision of the Taxing Master, FM Nyakundi dated 29th April, 2025 in the Kericho Chief Magistrate Misc. Application No. E001 of 2025, DC Ngeno & Company Advocates versus Roseline Cherotich be set aside and taxed or assessed afresh by this Honourable Court from Item No. 1 to Item No. 70.d.That the costs of this application be provided. 5.On 6th November, 2025, the Court struck out the said application as it was filed out of time and without leave. 6.The application under consideration first came up for hearing on 9th December, 2025 when the Court issued directions that it be served upon the Respondent. 7.On 18th February, 2026 the Court issued directions that the application be canvassed by way of written submissions. 8.On 21st April, 2026, It was mentioned to confirm filing of submissions before it was reserved for ruling. The Applicant’s Contention. 9.The Applicant contends that she was the Respondent in Kericho ELC Misc. Application No. E001 of 2025 DC Ngeno & Company Advocates versus Roseline Cherotich. 10.The Applicant also contends that the Respondent filed a bill of costs dated 29th April, 2025 which was taxed at Kshs. 1,560,320/= vide the ruling delivered on 29th April, 2025. She goes on to state that the said sum of money is punitive and excessive. 11.The Applicant further contends that she was aggrieved with the said taxation and she therefore wrote a letter requesting reasons as required under Paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order. 12.It is her contention that the Taxing Officer failed to apply the cardinal principles that are essential in guiding the taxation of Advocate-Client bill of costs. 13.It is also her contention that she filed a reference vide the Chamber Summons application dated 22nd May, 2025 and goes on to state that the said reference was struck out on 6th November, 2025 for being filed out of time and without leave. 14.It is further her contention that she is advised by her advocates on record that the Taxing Officer granted Counsel thirty days within which to lodge an appeal. 15.She contends that Counsel reasonably relied on the said directions in filing the reference. 16.She also contends that the errors and omissions of her advocates on record ought not to be visited upon her and goes on to state that the Court should exercise its discretion in her favour by allowing her to file a reference out of time. 17.She further contends that she acted in good faith and with diligence as the reference filed on 22nd May, 2025 fell within the thirty-day window granted by the Taxing Officer and also states that the reference was properly before this Court. 18.It is her contention that the delay in filing the reference was on account of her relying on the Court issued timeline. 19.It is also her contention that the delay was occasioned by a procedural confusion created by the conflicting timelines and adds that Paragraph 11(2) provides for fourteen days while the Taxing Officer granted her 30 days. 20.It is further her contention that in view of the inconsistency and her reliance on a lawful Court order, this Court should invoke its discretionary powers and enlarge the time within which to file a reference. 21.She contends that the delay is reasonable and excusable and the Respondent will not suffer any prejudice if time is enlarged. 22.She also contends that the taxed costs are prejudicial to her and there is need for the Court to enlarge time within which to file the reference. 23.She further contends that the awarded costs were manifestly excessive as the Taxing Officer erred in principle in taxing the Advocate – Client Bill of Costs. 24.She ends her deposition by stating that it is in the interest of justice that the prayers sought in the application under consideration be allowed as prayed. The Respondent’s Response. 25.In response to the application, the Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 3rd February, 2026. 26.She deposes that she is advised by Counsel that the application under consideration is an abuse of the Court process as the Applicant already filed a reference from the decision of the Taxing Officer. 27.She also deposes that the Court has already addressed the issue of the delay in the filing of the reference and if leave is granted, then the matter which has already been concluded will be reopened. 28.She further deposes that this Court is functus officio. 29.It is her deposition that she was instructed by the Applicant to represent the Plaintiff in Kericho ELC Case No. E019 of 2021 and goes on to state that her relationship with the Applicant irretrievably broke down and she filed an application dated 23rd October, 2024 seeking leave to cease acting for the Plaintiff. 30.It is also her deposition that the said application was allowed and she subsequently filed her Advocate – Client Bill of Costs in Kericho ELC Misc Application No. E001 of 2025. 31.It is further her deposition that she filed a valuation report which was the basis upon which the Taxing Officer taxed instruction fees. She goes on to state that the Taxing Officer taxed the said bill of costs on 29th April, 2025. 32.She deposes that Counsel for the Applicant was aware of the statutory time limit for filing a reference but instead he chose to ride on an error and filed the reference out of time. 33.She also deposes that the Applicant filed the reference under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order and she cannot therefore try and escape compliance by relying upon an alleged error. 34.She further deposes that the Court struck out the Applicant’s reference on 6th November, 2025 and adds that the Applicant filed the application under consideration on 2nd December, 2025 which was after a period of close to a month has lapsed. 35.It is her deposition that this delay shows that the application under consideration is an afterthought as it was not treated with the urgency it deserves especially if the Applicant intended to show that the initial delay was unintentional. 36.It is also her deposition that the Applicant is using the judicial process to delay the conclusion of the suit and is avoiding settling the taxed costs. 37.It is further her deposition that the Applicant has not sufficiently explained the delay in filing the reference. 38.She deposes that the discretion of this Court to grant leave to file a reference out of time is to be exercised in genuine cases only and it should not be used to aid the indolent Applicant. 39.She also deposes that the Applicant admits that there were errors and omissions and adds that the reference does not raise triable issues except for general issues that were already considered by the Taxing Officer. 40.She further deposes that the Applicant only contends that the amount is excessive but does not demonstrate how. 41.It is her deposition that she is entitled to recover her costs for the services rendered. 42.She ends her deposition by stating that if the application is allowed, she will suffer prejudice and will be denied the opportunity to be paid her legal fees. Issues for Determination. 43.The Applicant filed submissions on 8th April, 2026 while the Respondent filed submissions on 15th April, 2025. 44.The Applicant relies on Article 162 (2) of the Constitution of Kenya, Sections 1A & 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, the judicial decisions of Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Salat vs Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and 7 Others [2014] eKLR, Leo Sila Mutiso vs Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi CA Civil Application No. Nai 25 of 1997 (UR), Allan Otieno Osula vs Gurdey Engineering & Construction Ltd [2015]eKLR, Edith Gichugu Koine vs Stephen Njagi Thoithi [2014]eKLR and reiterates that the Taxing Officer delivered a ruling on 29th April, 2025. 45.The Applicant also reiterates that she wrote the letter dated 8th May, 2025 requesting for reasons before filing the reference on 22nd May, 2025. 46.The Applicant submits that it is evident that she acted expeditiously and in good faith in challenging the Taxing Officer’s decision. 47.The Applicant also submits that the delay of ten days was neither deliberate nor inordinate as it was occasioned by circumstances beyond her control. 48.The Applicant further submits that the Taxing Officer was away on annual leave during the first three weeks of May, 2025 and she therefore waited for him to come back and give the requisite reasons. 49.It is the Applicants submissions that the said delay is excusable and does not prejudice the Respondent in any way. 50.It is also the Applicants submissions that she will be prejudiced if the Court does not grant the orders sought. 51.The Applicant relies on the judicial decision of Showcase Property Limited versus Mugambi & Company Advocates Misc. Application No. 2 (2020) and submits that in the ruling delivered on 29th April, 2025, the Taxing Officer awarded the Respondent Kshs. 1,564,320/= which amount was excessive and punitive. 52.The Applicant also submits that under item No. 3 of the Bill of Costs dated 29th April, 2025, the Respondent requested for Kshs. 7,000/= but the Taxing Officer awarded her Kshs. 300,000/=. 53.The Applicant further submits that in the ruling delivered on 29th April, 2025 the Taxing Officer stated that the suit was pending in Court since the year 1997. 54.It is also the Applicant’s submissions that Kericho ELC Case No. E019 of 2021 was filed in the year 2021 and at the time the Respondent ceased acting, the suit had not proceeded for hearing. 55.It is further the Applicant’s submissions that she should be allowed to file a reference out of time in order for her not to condemned unheard. 56.The Applicant reiterates the averments in the affidavit in support of the application, relies on Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya, the judicial decisions of Blue Nile E.A Ltd vs Lydia Gode Yusuf & another [2018]eKLR, Mwangi vs Kariuki [1999] LLR 2632 (CAK), Joseph Odide Watome vs David Mbadi Akello [2022]eKLR, Vishva Stone Suppliers Company Limited vs RSR Stone 2006 Limited [2020]eKLR, Jusab vs Gamrai & another [2013]eKLR, Trust Bank Ltd vs Amalo Company Ltd [2003] EA and urges the Court to allow her application as prayed. 57.The Respondent submits on the following issues;a.Whether the Court has jurisdiction to grant leave to the Applicant to file a reference out of time on a matter that it had conclusively determined.b.Whether the dismissal of earlier application filed on 27th May, 2025 warrants a second opportunity to file another application in a matter already concluded.c.Whether the Respondent will suffer prejudice as a result of reopening the matter. 58.On the first issue, the Respondent relies on Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the judicial decision of Mario Rossi vs Salama Beach Hotel Limited [2019] eKLR and submits that after the Taxing Officer taxed her bill of costs on 29th April, 2025, the Applicant filed a reference on 27th May, 2025. 59.The Respondent also submits that the Court delivered a ruling on the said reference on 6th November, 2025 and dismissed it because it was filed out of time. 60.The Respondent further submits that the Applicant has filed a second reference from the decision of the Taxing Officer. 61.It is the Respondent’s submissions that the Applicant has not given a sufficient reason for the delay in the filing of the reference and relies on the judicial decision of Nicholus Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat vs IEBC & 7 Others [2014] eKLR in support of her submissions. 62.It is also the Respondent’s submissions that the Applicant’s conduct was informed by ignorance of the law which is not a defence. 63.It is further the Respondent’s submissions that there are strict timelines for the filing of a reference and the Court cannot assume jurisdiction over a procedurally defective process notwithstanding the provisions of Article 159 (2) of the Constitution of Kenya. 64.The Respondent relies on the judicial decisions of Law Society of Kenya vs The Center for Human Rights & Democracy & 12 Others, Petition No. 14 of 2013 (citation not given), Raila Odinga & 5 Others vs IEBC & 3 Others Petition No. 5 of 2013, Nzioka & Company Advocates vs Harith Sheth Advocates (citation not given) and submits that the application under consideration is similar to the reference filed on 22nd May, 2025. 65.The Respondent also submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the application under consideration given its earlier determination. 66.The Respondent relies on Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, the judicial decision of Samuel Kamau Macharia vs Kenya Commercial Bank & 2 Others, Civil Appl No. 2 of 2011, Estate of James Karanja alias James Kioi (Deceased) [2014] eKLR and submits that if the Court grants the Applicant leave, the finality of the matter will delay and she will therefore be prejudiced. 67.The Respondent reiterates that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate good and sufficient cause for the inordinate delay and urges the Court not to allow the relitigating of a determined matter under the guise of a new application. 68.With regard to the second issue, the Respondent submits that the grant of leave to file a reference out of time is discretionary. 69.The Respondent relies on the judicial decisions of Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat vs Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others [2014] eKLR, County Executive of Kisumu vs County Government of Kisumu & 8 Others [2017] KESC 16 (KLR) and submits that the application under consideration is res judicata and this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it. 70.The Respondent also submits that the Applicant has not given any satisfactory explanation in order for the Court to exercise its discretion in her favour. 71.On the third issue, the Respondent reiterates that the reference dated 22nd May, 2025 was dismissed as it was filed out of time and this matter was therefore brought to an and. 72.The Respondent submits that the Applicant should not be allowed a second chance to re-open a matter that has already been concluded. 73.The Respondent reiterates the averments in her Replying Affidavit and urges the Court to dismiss the Applicant’s application with costs. 74.The Respondent submits that after the expiry of the fourteen-day period that is provided for under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the Taxing Officer’s decision became final, binding and conclusive. 75.The Respondent submits that she already incurred significant legal costs in opposing the first reference and in preparing for its hearing. 76.The Respondent also submits that litigation must come to an end and she urges the Court to dismiss the Applicant’s application with costs. Analysis and Determination. 77.I have considered the Applicant’s application, the response thereto and the rival submissions. It is my view that the following issues arise for determination;a.Whether this Court is functus officio.b.Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to file a reference out of time.c.Who should bear costs of the application. A. Whether this Court is functus officio. 78.The Respondent contends that the Applicant filed a reference on 22nd May, 2025 from the decision of the Taxing Officer, which decision was delivered on 29th April, 2025. 79.The Respondent also contends that on 6th November, 2025 the Court struck out the said reference as it was filed out of time and without leave of Court. 80.The Respondent further contends that the application under consideration is tantamount to the reopening of a matter which has already been concluded and therefore this Court is functus officio. 81.The Applicant did not address this issue in her submissions. 82.A perusal of the Court record shows that indeed the Applicant filed a Chamber Summons application dated 22nd May, 2025. 83.The Court record also shows that on 6th November, 2025, the Court delivered a ruling on the said application and held as follows;“80.The present reference was filed on 22nd May, 2025. It is evidently filed out of time. The Applicant neither gave reasons for the delay nor sought to enlarge time as provided for under Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order…82.Taking the foregoing into consideration, I find that the Applicant’s reference dated 22nd May, 2025 is not competent having been filed out of time and without leave. Consequently, it is hereby struck out with costs.” 84.The Court of Appeal in Telkom Kenya Limited v John Ochanda (Suing On His Own Behalf and on Behalf Of 996 Former Employees of Telkom Kenya Limited) [2014] KECA 600 (KLR) held as follows;“Functus officio is an enduring principle of law that prevents the re-opening of a matter before a Court that rendered the final decision thereon.”(Emphasis mine) 85.It is trite law that once a Court has determined a suit on merit it becomes functus officio. 86.It is important to note that the reference dated 22nd May, 2025 was struck out as it was filed out of time and without leave. 87.In the judicial decision of Mbaraka Issa Kombo v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 others [2017] KEHC 2654 (KLR) the Court held as follows;“The two terms, ‘dismissal and striking out’ must therefore be differentiated for their true meaning and import and cannot be used interchangeably nor confused with each other. I hold the view that striking out is a summary procedure that investigates no merit of the dispute but looks at the propriety of the matter as presented and how it sits with the law… To the contrary dismissal of a cause would follow scrutiny of the merits of the dispute as articulated and after consideration of the facts and evidence grounding the cause.” (Emphasis mine) 88.In the above cited judicial decision, the Court held that striking out is a summary procedure that does not investigate the merits but looks at the proprietary of a matter as presented. The Court also held that a suit is dismissed upon scrutiny of its merits. 89.As stated, the application dated 22nd May, 2025 was struck out for having been filed out of time and it is apparent, that it was not determined on its merits. 90.That being the case, the Court cannot be said to be functus officio. B. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to file a reference out of time. 91.The Applicant is seeking for leave to file a reference out of time. 92.The Applicant contends that the Taxing Officer taxed the Respondent’s bill of costs on 29th April, 2025. 93.The Applicant also contends that she filed a reference on 22nd May, 2025 which reference was struck out for being filed out of time. 94.The Applicant further contends that when the Taxing Officer taxed the Respondent’s bill of costs, he granted them thirty days within which to file an appeal. 95.It is the Applicant’s contention that she relied on the directions of the Taxing Officer and filed the reference within the thirty-day period. 96.It is also the Applicant’s contention that the delay was occasioned by the confusion between the statutory period and the thirty-day period granted by the Taxing Officer. 97.It is further the Applicant’s contention that the Taxing Officer made errors of principle in the taxation of the Respondent’s bill of costs and urges the Court to grant her leave to file the reference out of time. 98.The Respondent on the other hand contends that Counsel for the Applicant was aware of the statutory time period within which to file a reference but chose to ride on an error. 99.The Respondent also contends that the application under consideration is an afterthought which is meant to delay the conclusion of this matter. 100.Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order provides as follows;“(4)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.” 101.In the judicial decision of County Government of Tana River v Miller and Company Advocates [2021] KEHC 5763 (KLR) the Court held as follows;“It is noted that paragraph 11 (1) (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order do not speak to the relevant factors that the Court should consider when exercising its discretion on whether or not an extension of time should be granted. Guidance must therefore be solved from case law in Paul Wanjohi Mathenge V Duncan Gichane Mathenge[2013]Eklr the Court of Appeal while referring to other authorities observed;-“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. In Henry Mukora Mwangi V Charles Gichina Mwangi – Civil Application No. Nai 26 of 2004, this Court held; -“It has been stated time and again that in an application under rule 4 of the Rules the learned single Judge is called upon to exercise his discretion which discretion is unfettered. It may be appropriate to re-emphasize this principle by referring to the decision in Mwangi V Kenya Airways Ltd [2003] KLR 486 in which this Court stated;-Over the years, the Court has, of course set out guidelines on what a single judge should consider when dealing with an application for extension of time under rule 4 of the Rules. For instance, in Leo Sila Mutiso V Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi – Civil Application No Nai 255 of 1997(unreported), the Court expressed itself thus; -“It is now well settled that the decision whether or not to extend the time for appealing is essentially discretionary. It is also well settled that in general matters which this Court takes into account in deciding whether to grant an extension of time are; first, the length of the delay; secondly, the reasons for delay; thirdly(possibly), the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted; and fourthly, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted.”(Emphasis mine) 102.The Taxing Officer’s decision was delivered on 29th April, 2025. Under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, the Applicant had fourteen days within which to file a reference. The Applicant ought to have filed the reference by 13th May, 2025. 103.In County Government of Tana River v Miller and Company Advocates (Supra) the Court further held as follows;“As stated in the above cases the length of the delay and reasons for non-compliance of the time lines are important factors to influence the exercise of discretion of the Court. In calculating the length of delay in making the application for an extension of time the period will start running from 14th day of April, 2021 when the bill of cost was taxed by the taxing master to the 7th day of May, 2021 which time the aggrieved Applicant lodged the chambers summons for extension of time. The delay in filing the application was on or about an overreach of 8 days. In seeking to balance the interest of the respective parties the failure to comply was not inordinate. In addition, the Applicant in his affidavit has explained the reasons which let time to lapse. That hurdle has therefore been satisfied as a sufficient cause for this Court to extend time in favor of the Applicant to file a Reference under paragraph 11 (1) (2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order.” (Emphasis mine) 104.As was held in County Government of Tana River v Miller and Company Advocates (Supra), the length of the delay and the reasons for non-compliance of the time lines are important factors that influence the exercise of discretion of the Court in extending time. 105.As at the time of the filing of the application dated 22nd May, 2025, a period of nine days had lapsed and as at the time of the filing of the application under consideration, a period of two hundred and seventeen days had lapsed since the Taxing Officer taxed the Respondent’s Bill of Costs. 106.The Applicant contends that the delay in filing the reference was occasioned by the directions given by the Taxing Officer on 29th April, 2025. 107.I have taken the liberty of perusing the proceedings in Kericho ELC Misc Application No. E001 of 2025. From the said proceedings, it is evident that the Taxing Officer taxed the Bill of Costs dated 5th December, 2024 on 29th April, 2025. 108.It is also evident that the Taxing Officer gave the parties thirty days within which to file an appeal. 109.It is important to note that the process of challenging the taxation of bill of costs is provided for under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. 110.As stated, the period within which to file a reference is fourteen days. 111.Even though the Taxing Officer gave the Applicant thirty days, the period within which to file a reference is fourteen days. Therefore, the Applicant ought to have complied with the timelines as provided for by law. 112.Further, the Applicant submits that the Taxing Officer was on leave during the first three weeks of the month of May, 2025 and that she therefore waited for him to get back and supply her with reasons. 113.It is my view that the fact that the Taxing Officer was on leave and the length of time he was on leave is immaterial to these proceedings. 114.Taking the foregoing into consideration, I find that the Applicant has given sufficient reasons for non-compliance with the timelines provided for under Paragraph 11(a) and (b) of the Advocates Remuneration Order. 115.It is therefore in the interest of justice that this Court exercises its discretion and extend time within which to file a reference. 116.Before penning off, I note that the Respondent submits that the application under consideration is res judicata. The question of res judicata was not raised in the Respondent’s Replying Affidavit but was raised in her submissions. 117.In the judicial decision of FMS v MAS [2020] eKLR the Court held as follows;“It is trite law that Submissions are not pleadings and that new issues cannot be raised in submissions. In Republic vs. Chairman Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & another Ex parte Zapkass Consulting and Training Limited & another [2014] Korir, J. stated:“The Applicant, the respondents and the interested party all introduced new issues in their submissions. Submissions are not pleadings. There is no evidence by way of affidavits to support the submissions. New issues raised by way of submissions are best ignored.” (Emphasis mine) 118.As was held in the above cited judicial decision, new issues cannot be raised in submissions. That being the case, this Court will disregard the submissions by the Respondent on the question of res judicata. C. Who should bear costs of the application. 119.The general rule is that costs shall follow the event. This is in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21). 120.A successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs of an action unless the Court, for good reason, directs otherwise. Disposition. 121.Taking the foregoing into consideration, I find that the Applicant’s Notice of Motion application dated 24th November, 2025 has merit and it is by allowed in the followed terms;a.Leave is hereby granted to the Applicant to file a reference against the ruling delivered by the Taxing Officer on 29th April, 2025 within seven days from the date hereof.b.The Respondent shall have costs of the application. 122.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KERICHO THIS 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.L. A. OMOLLOJUDGE.In the presence of: -Miss Cherotich for the RespondentMiss Chebet for the ApplicantCourt Assistant: Mr. Joseph Makori