SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Steve Kithi & Co Advocates v County Government Of Mombasa (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 38 of 2021) [2023] KEELC 21621 (KLR) (7 November 2023) (Ruling)

[2023] KEELC 21621 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
21621
Citation
[2023] KEELC 21621 (KLR)
Decided
7 November 2023
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureRespondent's objection to jurisdictionCoramLL NAIKUNI
The Court held that the objection by the Applicant does not meet the required threshold of a preliminary objection based on law and precedents.

Facts

The Applicant, Steve Kithi & Co Advocates, raised objections to the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court to entertain an application for the taxation of legal fees.

Issues

  • Whether the objection meets the required threshold of such objections based on law and precedents.
  • Whether the Court has jurisdiction on matters pertaining to tax bill of costs.
  • Who will bear the costs of the objection.

Reasoning

The Court relied on various precedents to establish that a preliminary objection must be based on a pure point of law and no fact should be ascertained from elsewhere.

Outcome

The Court dismissed the objection.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Advocates' Act, Chapter 16 of the Laws of Kenya
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Cases cited (5)
  • Mukisa Biscuits – Versus - Westend Distributor Ltd
  • Nitin Properties Limited – Versus - Jagjit S. Kalsi & another
  • United Insurance Company Limited – Versus - Scholastica A Odera Kisumu
  • Attorney General & Another – Versus - Andrew Mwaura Githinji & another
  • Nakumatt Holdings Limited & Another – Versus - Ideal Locations Limited
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case