https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1310

V Chokaa & Company Advocates v Essajee Amijee (EA) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application E068 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 1310 (KLR) (15 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1310 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Miscellaneous Application E068 of 2024 AK Nzei, J May 15, 2026 Between V Chokaa & Company Advocates Applicant and Essajee Amijee (Ea) Ltd Respondent Ruling 1.The Court’s record herein shows that vide a Ruling delivered on 30th August, 2024, this Court’s Senior Deputy Registrar, sitting as a Taxing Officer, taxed the Applicant/Respondent’s Advocate/Client Bill of Costs dated 27th February, 2024 in the sum of Kshs.84,042/=. No objection to the Taxing Officer’s said decision is shown to have been filed within the fourteen (14) days period provided for in Rule 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order. 2.The application before me for determination is the Respondent/Applicant’s Chamber Summons Application dated 15th April, 2025. The Respondent/Applicant seeks the following Orders:-a.That this Court be pleased to enlarge the time, which the Respondent (sic) can file a taxation reference against the Ruling of the Taxing Officer dated 30th August, 2024.b.That consequent to the grant of Order 1 above, the Reference application filed herein be deemed to be duly filed and properly on record.c.That the Court be pleased to grant interim orders for stay of execution of the costs awarded in the above Ruling, pending the hearing and determination of the instant application.d.That the Court be pleased to vacate or review, in its entirety, the Ruling of Hon. Fredrick Nyamora and all the consequential orders emanating from the said Ruling.e.That the Court be pleased to reassess and tax a fresh the Applicant’s Bill of Costs dated 28th February, 2024.f.That costs of the application be provided for. 3.The application sets out on its face the grounds on which it is brought, which grounds are replicated in the supporting affidavit of Athman Wambua sworn on 15th April, 2025. It is deponed in the said supporting affidavit, inter alia:-a.that after delivery of the Taxing Officer’s Ruling delivered on 30th August, 2024, the Respondent/Applicant filed a Notice of Objection dated 3rd September, 2024, seeking reasons informing the Taxing Officer’s decision.b.that the Taxing Officer erred by failing to consider the evidence submitted by the Respondent/Applicant on the sums already paid up by the Respondent/Applicant in fees for the work undertaken by the Applicant/Respondent in Nairobi MC ELR Case No. E1881 of 2023 (Michael Musembi Mwaniki v Essajee Amijee [E.A.] Ltd; thus arriving at an erroneous conclusion.c.that it was a travesty of justice for the Taxing Officer to trash the Respondent’s evidence on the payment of fees, for no reason at all.d.that the Taxing Officer erred in taxing item No. 1 (instructions fees) and in ruling that all the other items in the bill were drawn to scale. 4.The Court’s record shows that the application herein was placed before the Court’s Easter Recess Judge on 17th April, 2025 under a certificate of urgency. The Honourable Judge certified the application as urgent and issued an order staying execution for the costs awarded in the cause on 30th August, 2024 pending inter-partes hearing and determination of the application. 5.I have noted that there was no decree capable of being executed as the Applicant/Respondent’s Amended Notice of Motion dated 29th October, 2024, seeking entry of Judgment pursuant to Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act, is still pending hearing and determination. 6.On 7th May, 2025, I directed that the Respondent/Applicant’s application herein (dated 15th April, 2025) be heard first, in view of the aforesaid Orders dated 17th April, 2025. The said application is opposed by the Respondent/Applicant vide a replying affidavit of Vincent Chokaa Advocate sworn on 28th April, 2025. It is deponed in the said replying affidavit:-a.that being aggrieved by the Taxing Officer’s Ruling, the Respondent/Applicant gave a Notice of Objection to the Deputy Registrar on 3rd September, 2024.b.that having been furnished with a copy of the Ruling, the Respondent/Applicant timeously filed a reference in respect of Miscellaneous Application No. E062 of 2024 on 11th September, 2024.c.that the Respondent/Applicant could have filed reference within fourteen (14) days of being furnished with the Ruling, if it so desired. That there is unreasonable [and] unexplained delay of eight (8) months in filing reference against the Deputy Registrar’s decision.d.that there has been no reference, and that prayers (d) and (e) (4 and 5) in the said application cannot issue. 7.Both parties filed written submissions pursuant to the Court’s directions in that regard. 8.Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order states as follows:-“(1)Should any party object to the decision of the taxing officer, he may within fourteen days from the date of 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 for his objection.(3)Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Judge upon any objection referred to such Judge under paragraph (2) may, with the leave of the Judge but not otherwise, appeal to the Court of Appeal.(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 not withstanding that the time sought to be enlarged may have already expired.” 9.The term “High Court” as used in Section 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order includes this Court, by virtue of Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. The aforesaid subparagraph is categorical that this Court’s power to enlarge the time fixed by subparagraph (1) is discretionary. It is trite that a party seeking exercise of a Court’s discretion in its favour is obligated to demonstrate valid and reasonable grounds as to why the Court should exercise discretion in his favour. The Respondent/Applicant has not advanced any reason and/or valid reason for not filing a reference within time pursuant to Rule 11(2) of the Advocates Remuneration Order. 10.I will, however, exercise the Court’s discretion in favour of the Respondent/Applicant, in the interest of Justice, and will allow it to file reference against the Taxing Officer’s impugned decision. Prayers (d) and (e) in the application (to vacate the Taxing Officer’s decision and for re-assessment and taxation of the Applicant/Respondent’s Bill) cannot be granted as there is no reference on record as yet. Such prayers could not have been validly made before enlargement of time within which to file the intended reference. The said prayers are hereby struck off. There cannot be short-cuts in litigation. 11.In sum, and having considered written submissions filed on behalf of both parties herein, the Notice of Motion dated 15th April, 2025 partly succeeds, and is hereby allowed in the following terms:-a.The time for filing reference against the Taxing Officer’s decision dated 30th August, 2024 is hereby enlarged by fourteen (14) days from the date of this Ruling.b.Costs of the application are awarded to the Applicant/Respondent (the Advocate). 12.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY 2026AGNES KITIKU NZEIJUDGEOrderThis Ruling has been delivered via Microsoft Teams Online Platform. A signed copy will be availed to each party upon payment of the applicable Court fees.Appearance:Dr. Chokaa for the Applicant/RespondentMiss Otokoma for the Respondent/Applicant