[2025] KEELC 5212 (KLR)

[2025] KEELC 5212 (KLR)

The court held that, applying Order 50 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the period between 21st December and 13th January must be excluded from the computation of time for filing the reference. As a result, the Defendants' reference, filed on 14th January 2025 following the taxing officer's decision on 9th December 2024, was within the prescribed time limit under rule 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The Plaintiff's preliminary objection, which was premised on the reference being out of time, was therefore without legal basis and was dismissed with costs to the Defendants.

Citation
[2025] KEELC 5212 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Michael Peroh; Defendant: Ishmael Moshi Peroh; Defendant: Winifred Moshi Peroh; Defendant: Spephen Peroh; Defendant: Isaac Peroh
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
13 June 2025
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 89 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Reference Against Taxing Officer's Decision
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the defendants
Judges
MD Mwangi
Legal Topics
Computation of Time, Advocates Remuneration Order, Taxation of Costs, Preliminary Objection
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Computation of Time Advocates Remuneration Order Taxation of Costs Preliminary Objection

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Peroh

Plaintiff

Ishmael Moshi Peroh

Defendant

Winifred Moshi Peroh

Defendant

Spephen Peroh

Defendant

Isaac Peroh

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Reference Against Taxing Officer's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' reference was filed out of time contrary to rule 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
  2. 2 Whether the computation of time should exclude the period between 21st December and 13th January as per Order 50 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the preliminary objection raises a valid legal basis for striking out the reference.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, applying Order 50 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the period between 21st December and 13th January must be excluded from the computation of time for filing the reference. As a result, the Defendants' reference, filed on 14th January 2025 following the taxing officer's decision on 9th December 2024, was within the prescribed time limit under rule 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The Plaintiff's preliminary objection, which was premised on the reference being out of time, was therefore without legal basis and was dismissed with costs to the Defendants.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the defendants

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's preliminary objection dated 19th March 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Defendants.