Kenya Case Law

Apollo Muinde & Partners Advocates v National Land Commission

Apollo Muinde & Partners Advocates v National Land Commission (Miscellaneous Application E005 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5335 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Application E005 of 2023

Judge

["EK Makori"]

The applicant failed to justify the four-month delay and therefore did not satisfy the threshold for the court’s equitable discretion to enlarge time or grant leave to appeal. The court also found that the intended appeal lacked arguability because the court had discretion, after finding error in principle in the taxation reference, to re-tax the bill itself where justice required. The application was dismissed with costs.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time
• Leave to appeal
• Notice of appeal out of time
• Reference from taxation
• Judicial discretion
• Inordinate delay

Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd v Odongo t/a Odongo Investment Auctioneers

Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd v Odongo t/a Odongo Investment Auctioneers (Miscellaneous Application E024 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12761 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Application E024 of 2024

Judge

["ACA Ong’injo"]

The Court held that it could not invalidate the execution proceedings within an appeal against taxation, and that the Respondent was not disentitled to fees on the licensing complaint. However, the taxation was unsustainable because the ruling did not disclose the legal provisions, calculations, or factual basis used to assess the disputed items, including commission, duplication, and disbursements. The absence of reasons prevented meaningful review and showed that the discretion was not demonstrated to have been exercised judicially. The matter therefore required fresh taxation before a diff…

Source excerpt

• Auctioneer’s fees
• Taxation discretion
• Proclamation and attachment
• Validity of execution process
• Reasoned rulings
• Over-attachment

Godad v Ahmed & 6 others

Godad v Ahmed & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 4 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 4217 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Case 4 of 2019

Judge

["RO Omondi"]

The Plaintiff failed to satisfactorily explain the whole period of delay. Even assuming the ruling became accessible only when uploaded to CTS, the Plaintiff gave no evidence of any steps taken for about four months after upload to monitor or obtain the ruling. Absence of notice alone was insufficient. Because the applicant did not show diligence or account for the material period of inactivity, the Court declined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11(4) and dismissed the application.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time
• Reference from taxation
• Delay explanation
• Court discretion under paragraph 11(4)
• Cts upload and notice
• Getting-up fees

Ombuna Ongeri & Company Advocates v Trident Insurance Company Limited

Ombuna Ongeri & Company Advocates v Trident Insurance Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application E440 of 2019) [2026] KEHC 9766 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (29 June 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Application E440 of 2019

Judge

["RC Rutto"]

The applicant gave an uncontroverted and reasonable explanation for the non-attendance, namely loss of connectivity during a virtual court session caused by a power outage, and the respondent filed no opposition. The court therefore exercised its discretion under Order 12 rule 7 to set aside the dismissal in the interest of substantive justice.

Source excerpt

• Setting aside dismissal orders
• Non-attendance
• Discretion of the court
• Virtual hearing connectivity failure
• Unopposed application
• Substantive justice

King’ori & another v Bindo

King’ori & another v Bindo (Civil Case 481 of 2006) [2026] KEHC 8589 (KLR) (Civ) (18 June 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Case 481 of 2006

Judge

["JN Mulwa"]

The Court held that the Plaintiffs proved the existence and binding effect of the sale and settlement agreements, and the Defendant failed to prove forgery or duress. However, the Plaintiffs did not specifically prove payment of Kshs. 3,879,689 to Kenya Revenue Authority, so the refund claim failed as special damages. Because breach of contract was nonetheless established through the Defendant's failure to honour his contractual undertaking to settle duties and taxes, the Court awarded nominal damages only.

Source excerpt

• Breach of contract
• Special damages
• Nominal damages
• Duress
• Acknowledgment of liability
• Jurisdiction

SI Mwaura & Co Advocates v Thika Grove Chania Ltd alias Finsco Consulting Africa Ltd

SI Mwaura & Co Advocates v Thika Grove Chania Ltd alias Finsco Consulting Africa Ltd (Miscellaneous Commercial Application E025 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 8908 (KLR) (18 June 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Commercial Application E025 of 2026

Judge

["FN Muchemi"]

The respondent’s affidavit defect did not justify striking out the application, because the defect was attributable to the commissioning advocate and not the client. The respondent had sufficient opportunity to participate in taxation and was not condemned unheard. The taxing master applied the correct principles under Schedule 5 and no error of principle or manifest excess was proved. The reference failed, the taxation was upheld, and because the certificate of taxation remained valid, judgment was properly entered for the advocate for the taxed sum with interest.

Source excerpt

• Certificate of taxation
• Reference under rule 11 of the advocates remuneration order
• Setting aside taxation
• Supporting affidavit by unlicensed advocate
• Fair hearing
• Schedule v pay structure

A. Thuo Kanai Advocates v Cannon Assurance Ltd

A. Thuo Kanai Advocates v Cannon Assurance Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 85 of 2019) [2026] KEHC 9191 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (18 June 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 85 of 2019

Judge

["MO Ado"]

The Client failed to prove any recognized ground for setting aside the consent judgment of 11 March 2025. The allegation of inadvertent consent was unsupported by evidence, the advocate who allegedly erred did not swear an affidavit, and there was no proof that counsel lacked authority. As a result, the consent order remained binding and the court would not revisit the merits of the earlier taxed-costs application.

Source excerpt

• Setting aside consent judgment
• Consent orders
• Advocate-client costs
• Interest on taxed costs
• Ostensible authority of counsel
• Res judicata

Fidelity Commercial Bank Limited v Linear Coach Co. Limited & 2 others

Fidelity Commercial Bank Limited v Linear Coach Co. Limited & 2 others (Civil Case 383 of 2010) [2026] KEHC 6206 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (7 May 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Case 383 of 2010

Judge

["BK Njoroge"]

The court held that the Preliminary Objection did not meet the Mukisa Biscuit threshold because the application raised contested factual matters, including when the taxing officer's reasons were received and whether the reference was timeous. Those disputes could not be resolved purely as a point of law, so the objection failed.

Source excerpt

• Preliminary objection
• Advocates remuneration order
• Reference against taxation decision
• Timelines for filing reference
• Taxing officer's discretion

Kemboy Law Advocates v Narok County Government

Kemboy Law Advocates v Narok County Government (Commercial Miscellaneous Application E028 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 4858 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (10 April 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Commercial Miscellaneous Application E028 of 2023

The Taxing Officer failed to properly exercise discretion and misapplied Schedule 6 in awarding instruction fees and getting up fees, and did not disclose the basis for the value of the subject matter. The 50% increase was correctly applied in principle, but the error in instruction fees vitiated the overall award.

Source excerpt

• Advocate-client bill of costs
• Taxation of costs
• Advocates remuneration order
• Instruction fees
• Getting up fees

George Saitoti Rantaine v Philemon Kimanyal ole Paro

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E005 of 2025

Judge

["MN Mwanyale"]

The court struck out a reference against taxation as filed out of time under paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, and awarded costs to the respondent.

• Reference against taxation
• Competence of reference
• Time limits under paragraph 11 of the advocates remuneration order
• Extension of time
• Striking out for want of jurisdiction
• Taxation-reference