[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
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the reference was filed out of time contrary to Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KISUMU
MISC. APPL. SUCC. NO. E001 OF 2021
BRUCE ODENY & CO. ADVOCATES......ADVOCATE/APPLICANT
VERSUS
RAVJI DEVJI CHHABHADIA
KANJI DEVJI CHHABHADIA
CHANDRAKANT DEVJI CHHABHADIA......CLIENTS/OBJECTORS
RULING
This Ruling is on the Preliminary Objection dated 31st May 2021.
1. The Clients/Respondents have raised a preliminary objectionbecause the Advocate/Applicant had lodged the Reference 48 days after the Taxing Officer had delivered her Ruling on taxation.
2. It is common ground that the Ruling in issue was delivered on 2nd February 2021.
3. Pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 11of the Advocates Remuneration Order, any party who has an objection to thedecision of the Taxing Officer, is required to give Notice in writing to the said Taxing Officer within 14 days from the date when the said decision is delivered.
4. The said Notice is intended to specify the items of taxation to which the party objects.
5. Upon receipt of the Notice, the Taxing Officer is obliged toimmediately record and then forward to the objecting party, the reasons for the decision, on the items in respect to which the party raised an objection.
6. Upon receipt of the reasons from the Taxing Officer, the objecting party will have 14 days within which to lodge his reference.
7. The learned advocate for the Client/Respondent captured the steps in his written submissions, as follows;
“Any party therefore aggrieved by the Taxing Officer’s decision may within 14 days after the decision, give notice in writing to the Taxing Officer, of the items of taxation to which he objects.
The party, upon receipt of the Taxing Officer’s reasons for the decision, may within 14 days from receipt of reasons, apply to a Judge by Chamber Summons.”
8. In the circumstances, I find myself unable to comprehend why the Client/Respondent went ahead to calculate the 48 days from the date when the Taxing Officer delivered her ruling.
9. In this case, the Advocate/Applicant issued a Notice to the Taxing Officer within one day after the ruling was delivered. The Notice was dated 3rd February 2021.
10. Therefore, the Advocate/Applicant would have 14 days from the date when the Taxing Officer supplied her reasons for thedecision she had made.
11. In order to enable the Court calculate the said period of 14 days, the Applicant ought to have provided evidence of the date when the reasons were supplied by the Taxing Officer. I have searched long and hard, but failed to trace evidence of the date when the Taxing Officer supplied reasons for the decision she made on 2nd February 2021.
12. At paragraph 8 of his supporting affidavit, Advocate Bruce O. O. Odeny deponed thus;
“THAT the decision by the taxing master, in response to our query was not released to us until today the 16th March 2021.
Annexed hereto and marked “BOO-4” is a copy of the Ruling by the DeputyRegistrar.”
13. The Client/Respondent did not file any affidavit to challenge that deposition.
14. In any event, it is well settled that a Preliminary Objection is a pure point of law, which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. That means that the preliminary objection herein was to be argued on the assumption that the Taxing Officer only provided her reasons on 16th March 2021, when she gave to the Applicant the Ruling.
15. In the result I find that the reference was filed within 14 days, when the said period is calculated from 16th March 2021.
16. Accordingly, the Applicant did not need to seek an extension of time for filing of the reference.
17. I find that the preliminary objection lacks merit, and is therefore rejected.
18. The Client/Respondent shall pay to the Advocate/Applicant the costs of the preliminary objection.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMUTHIS 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
FRED A. OCHIENG
JUDGE