[2022] KEHC 2465 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 2465 (KLR)

The court held that the relevant period for filing a reference under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order begins to run from the date the Taxing Officer supplies reasons for the decision, not from the date of the ruling itself. Since the Advocate/Applicant issued a notice to the Taxing Officer promptly...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 2465 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Bruce Odeny & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Ravji Devji Chhabhadia; Respondent: Kanji Devji Chhabhadia; Respondent: Chandrakant Devji Chhabhadia
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Succession Application E001 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Preliminary Objection, Advocate Remuneration Order, Reference Timelines
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Taxation of Costs Preliminary Objection Advocate Remuneration Order Reference Timelines

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce Odeny & Co. Advocates

Applicant

Ravji Devji Chhabhadia

Respondent

Kanji Devji Chhabhadia

Respondent

Chandrakant Devji Chhabhadia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the reference was filed out of time contrary to Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
  2. 2 Whether the preliminary objection on limitation is merited.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the relevant period for filing a reference under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order begins to run from the date the Taxing Officer supplies reasons for the decision, not from the date of the ruling itself. Since the Advocate/Applicant issued a notice to the Taxing Officer promptly and only received the reasons on 16th March 2021, the reference filed within 14 days thereafter was timely. The Respondents did not challenge the applicant's evidence regarding the date of receipt of reasons. Therefore, the preliminary objection, which calculated time from the date of the ruling, was misconceived and lacked merit.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is rejected.
  • The Clients/Respondents shall pay the costs of the preliminary objection to the Advocate/Applicant.