https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5237

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT NAIROBI** **ELC PETITION NO. 1 OF 2024** **WOODLEY RESIDENTS** **WELFARE ASSOCIATION - 1ST PETITIONER** **WANJA KIMANI - 2ND PETITIONER** **PETER NGATIA - 3RD PETITIONER** **JOHN MUGWE - 4TH PETITIONER** **SAMSON MUGACHA MWANGI - 5TH PETITIONER** **VS** **THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NAIROBI - 1ST RESPONDENT** **THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - 2ND RESPONDENT** **MINISTRY OF LANDS,** **HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 3RD RESPONDENT** **AND** **KENYA NATIONAL HUMAN** **RIGHTS COMMISSION - 1ST INTERESTED PARTY** **KENYA CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY - 2ND INTERESTED PARTY** **NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL** **MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY - 3RD INTERESTED PARTY** **AFRICA REIT LIMITED - 4TH INTERESTED PARTY** **RULING** **(In respect of the 3rd Petitioner’s application dated 17/2/26** 1. The Chamber summons motion for determination is the 3rd Petitioner's application dated 17/2/26, seeking inter alia that the court enlarge the time within which the 3rd Petitioner would file an objection to the taxing matters decision of 28/1/26, that the draft objection be deemed duly filed upon payment of the requisite court fees, and, lastly, costs for the application. 2. The application is premised on the grounds and the supporting affidavit of Peter Ngatia, the 3rd Petitioner herein. He avers that the Deputy Registrar delivered her ruling with respect to the 4th Interested Party's bill of costs on 28/1/26, where the bill was taxed at Kshs 335,195/-. The ruling was emailed to him on 30/1/2026 for perusal; however, he did not see it in good time. Upon considering the ruling, he instructed his advocates on record to file an objection to Item No. 1 of the bill of costs. It was then that he was informed by his advocates that the objection was out of time, the rules providing that it ought to be filed within 14 days, hence necessitating the filing of the current application. 3. That the delay in filing the objection within 14 days was not deliberate and that the same is excusable. The impugned Ruling and the notice of objection dated 17/2/26 are annexed to the application. 4. In opposing the application, the 4th Interested Party termed it frivolous, vexatious and designed to keep the parties in court endlessly and needlessly. 5. The applicant successfully moved the court to strike out the amended bill of costs and now seeks to obstruct the very process they helped shape. 6. The genesis of this contest before the court is the court's Ruling dated 7/10/24; the applicant's petition was struck out as res judicata, and costs were awarded to the 1st Respondent and the 4th Interested Party. 7. Following which, the 4th Interested party filed its party and party costs on 11/11/24, seeking Kshs 1,806,062/- as costs. 8. Before the said bill could be taxed, the 3rd Petitioner filed an application dated 12/11/2024 seeking a stay of execution and taxation of the 1st interested party’s bill of costs dated 11/11/24. 9. This court [as presently constituted] rendered its ruling on 30/4/25, dismissing the 3rd petitioner's application dated 12/11/24. Consequently, as at 30/4/25, the 4th interested party was entitled to two costs arising from the two rulings of 7/10/24 and 30/4/25. It therefore became necessary to amend the bill of costs already filed to incorporate the costs awarded by the court to date. 10. Furthermore, he argued that the applicant is seeking an extension of time to file an objection to the Taxing Master's decision dated 28/1/26, without filing a draft reference or grounds for the objection. 11. That the court can only interfere with the decision of the Taxing Master where there is demonstrable error of law or principle, and that the applicant's failure to attach the same is fatal. In other words, the applicant has not given reasons, pleaded any error in principle, or provided any justification for the court to interfere with the decision. 12. Further, the applicant has not given reasons for the delay in filing the objection, and, as such, the application is somewhat undeserving of this court's discretion. The applicant's aim in bringing this application is to delay the conclusion of these proceedings and frustrate the realisation of its awarded costs, which have been duly taxed. 13. The Court was urged to dismiss the application 14. The applicant, the 1st respondent and the 4th Interested party filed written submissions, which I have read and considered. 15. The key issue for determination is whether the application is merited. 16. Section 95 of the CPR provides as follows; “Where any period is fixed or granted by the court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Act, the court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired”. 1. In the case of Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat…Vs….The Independent Electoral And Boundaries Commission & 7 Others [2014] eKLR, the Court held that:- “...................... It is clear that the discretion to extend time is indeed unfettered. “It is incumbent upon the applicant to explain the reasons for delay in making the application for extension and whether there are any extenuating circumstances that can enable the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. “We derive the following as the underlying principles that a court should consider in exercising such discretion:-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; Whether the court should exercise the discretion to extend time, is a consideration to be made on a case-to-case basis; Where there is a reasonable [cause] for the delay, the same should be expressed to the satisfaction of the court; Whether there would be any prejudice suffered by the respondent, if extension is granted; Whether the application has been brought without undue delay; and Whether in certain cases, like election petitions, public interest should be a consideration for extending time.” 1. In this case, the applicant has sought an extension of time to file an objection to the decision of the Taxing Master. The application is opposed on the grounds, inter alia, that no objection is annexed and that what is sought to be challenged has not been disclosed. I have seen the annexed draft objection to the Ruling, in which the applicant has stated that there are two grounds, first, Item No. 1 on instructions, and second, seeking justification for taxing a bill abandoned upon moment. The court is satisfied that a notice of objection under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order has been annexed. 2. The second ground is that the applicant has not provided cogent reasons for the delay in filing the objection. The applicant has explained that, once the Ruling was delivered, it was sent to him, but for some reason he did not see it until later, when he reviewed it and instructed the lawyer to file the objection. By then, the time had already passed, and therefore the application for enlargement became necessary. The court is satisfied that the applicant has given a plausible reason for the delay in complying with the rules and that, overall, the delay was about 5 days. The court is further satisfied that the delay was not inordinate. Taking this into account, the court finds that the application should be allowed to enable the parties to be heard on the merits of the reference. 3. In the end, the application is allowed, with costs in favour of the 1st Respondent and the 4th Interested Party. 4. Orders accordingly **DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026 VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS.** **J. G. KEMEI** **JUDGE** **Delivered Online in the presence of:** 1. N/A for the 1st and 2nd Petitioners 2. Mr Karwanda for the 3rd Petitioner 3. N/A for the 1st -3rd Respondents 4. Mr Warutumo for the 1st Interested Party 5. N/A for the 2nd -4th Interested Parties 6. CA- Mr Amos