Martin t/a Waichungo Martin & Company Advocates v Wangui (Miscellaneous Reference Application E034 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8428 (KLR) (10 June 2026) (Ruling)

Martin t/a Waichungo Martin & Company Advocates v Wangui (Miscellaneous Reference Application E034 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8428 (KLR) (10 June 2026) (Ruling)

The applicant demonstrated only a short 2-day delay, offered a satisfactory explanation that the taxing officer's reasons were supplied late, and the application was unopposed. Applying Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order and the controlling principles on extension of time, the court found it just and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 8428 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Waichungo Martin t/a Waichungo Martin & Company Advocates; Respondent: Samuel Gitahi Wangui
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Reference Application E034 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Reference Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement/extension of Time to File Reference Against Taxation
Outcome
Application allowed
Judges
["LN Mutende"]
Legal Topics
Enlargement of Time, Reference From Taxing Officer, Notice of Objection, Delay in Filing, Unopposed Application
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Advocates' Remuneration Taxation of Costs Enlargement of Time Reference From Taxing Officer Notice of Objection Delay in Filing Unopposed Application

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waichungo Martin t/a Waichungo Martin & Company Advocates

Applicant

Samuel Gitahi Wangui

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Reference Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement/extension of Time to File Reference Against Taxation

  1. 1 Whether time should be enlarged to allow the applicant to file a reference against the taxing officer's decision.
  2. 2 Whether the 2-day delay was adequately explained and whether prejudice would be suffered by the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant demonstrated only a short 2-day delay, offered a satisfactory explanation that the taxing officer's reasons were supplied late, and the application was unopposed. Applying Rule 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order and the controlling principles on extension of time, the court found it just and equitable to enlarge time.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • Leave granted to file a reference against the taxing master's decision on the bill of costs dated 25/09/2024 taxed on 21/05/2025 within 14 days from the date of the ruling.
  • No order as to costs.