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

Nyamu Nyaga & Company Advocate v Meru University of Science and Technology (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E048 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1376 (KLR) (19 March 2025) (Ruling)

[2025] KEELC 1376 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
1376
Citation
[2025] KEELC 1376 (KLR)
Decided
19 March 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureApplication Struck OutCoramBM EBOSO
Holding

The application is struck out and the applicant is directed to file and prosecute the application for adoption in the cause in which the certificate of taxation was issued.

Facts

Nyamu Nyaga & Company Advocate sought an order adopting a taxing officer's award of Kshs 62,628,920 as per the certificate of taxation dated 12/11/2024. The respondent opposed the application, citing lack of reasons from the taxing officer.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for adoption of the taxing officer's award should be allowed.
  2. Whether the application was irregular and should be struck out.

Reasoning

The court found the application irregular as it was initiated as a fresh stand-alone miscellaneous application, and the court is not seized of the record relating to the cause in which the certificate of taxation was issued.

Outcome

Application Struck Out

Orders

  • The application is struck out.
  • The applicant is directed to file and prosecute the application for adoption in the cause in which the certificate of taxation was issued.

Remedies

  • Parties will bear their respective costs of this miscellaneous application.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Advocates Act
  • Advocates (Remuneration) Order
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case