[2024] KEELC 7357 (KLR)
The court determined that the issue of whether the Taxing Master had jurisdiction to determine the existence of an Advocate-Client relationship is fundamental and must be addressed before proceeding further. Since neither party had submitted on this jurisdictional issue, the court found it necessary, in the interest...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 7357 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: PI Samba & Company Limited; Respondent: Linear Credit Limited; Respondent: Taru Ranchers Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E170 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Issue and Directions for Further Submissions
- Outcome
- Parties directed to file further submissions on the issue of jurisdiction within 14 days; no final determination on the substantive application at this stage.
- Judges
- MD Mwangi
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Advocate Client Relationship, Jurisdiction of Taxing Master
- 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
PI Samba & Company Limited
Applicant
Linear Credit Limited
Respondent
Taru Ranchers Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Issue and Directions for Further Submissions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Taxing Master had jurisdiction to determine the existence of an Advocate-Client relationship during taxation of the Advocate-Client bill of costs.
- 2 Whether parties should be given an opportunity to submit on the issue of jurisdiction before the court pronounces itself.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that the issue of whether the Taxing Master had jurisdiction to determine the existence of an Advocate-Client relationship is fundamental and must be addressed before proceeding further. Since neither party had submitted on this jurisdictional issue, the court found it necessary, in the interest of fairness and in accordance with Article 50 of the Constitution, to grant both parties an opportunity to file further submissions specifically on the question of jurisdiction. The court emphasized that jurisdiction is a threshold matter that can be raised at any stage and must be resolved before any substantive determination is made. Accordingly, the court directed the...
Court Disposition
Parties directed to file further submissions on the issue of jurisdiction within 14 days; no final determination on the substantive application at this stage.
Orders
- Parties are granted 14 days to file further submissions limited to the issue of jurisdiction of the Taxing Master to determine the existence of an Advocate-Client relationship.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
PI Samba & Company Limited v Linear Credit Limited & another (Environment & Land Case E170 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 7357 (KLR) (29 October 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 7357 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment & Land Case E170 of 2022
MD Mwangi, J
October 29, 2024
Between
PI Samba & Company Limited
Advocate
and
Linear Credit Limited
1st Client
Taru Ranchers Limited
2nd Client
Ruling
1. In the course of preparing its ruling in respect to the Chamber Summons application dated 4th December 2023, this court has been confronted with a critical issue that it must determine; whether it was within the Taxing Master's jurisdiction to determine the existence or otherwise of an Advocate-Client relationship in the cause of taxing the Advocate-Client bill of costs filed in this matter by the law firm of P.I Samba & Company Advocates.
2. The question is critical because in the ruling that the Advocate seeks to challenge through this reference dated 20th November 2023, the Taxing Master declined to tax the Advocate-Client bill of costs on the premises of the non-existence of an Advocate-Client relationship between the Advocate and the Client/Respondent.
3. None of the parties has submitted on the issue in their written submissions. I therefore find it appropriate in the spirit of the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitution to allow the parties an opportunity to submit on the issue before pronouncing myself on it.
4. I cannot over-emphasize on the importance of the issue of jurisdiction in any proceedings. The Court of Appeal in the case of Kakuta Maimai, Hamisi -v- Peris Pesi Tobiko & 2 others (2013) eKLR, articulated on the issue of jurisdiction stating that,“So central and determinative is the question of jurisdiction that it is at once fundamental and over- arching as far as any judicial proceeding is concerned. It is a threshold question and best taken at inception. It is definitive and determinative...”
5. The question of jurisdiction of the court is so fundamental that it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, by any party or even by the court suo moto.
6. I will therefore allow the parties 14 days to file further submissions on that issue of jurisdiction alone.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024M.D MWANGIJUDGEIn the Virtual Presence of:-Ms. Samba for the ApplicantMr. Kamani for the 1st RespondentMr. Mutegi for the 2nd RespondentCourt Assistant: YvetteM.D. MWANGIJUDGE