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

Rustam Hira Advocate v Orient Bank formerly Delphis Bank [2016] KEHC 6511 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 6511 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
6511
Citation
[2016] KEHC 6511 (KLR)
Decided
12 February 2016
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureRespondent filed a preliminary objection and a replying affidavit to oppose the motion.CoramJ. K. SERGON
Holding

The application is premature and the suit is not time barred. The application is dismissed with costs.

Facts

The applicant, Rustam Hira Advocate, sought a judgment in the sum of Kshs 26,353,550/= and interest at 14% per annum from 7th February 2005. The respondent, Orient Bank formerly Delphis Bank, filed a preliminary objection and a replying affidavit.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is brought contrary to the provisions of section 51(2) of the Advocates Act
  2. Whether the application is prematurely brought prior to the conclusion of the reference
  3. Whether the application is time barred contrary to section 4(1) of the Limitations of Actions Act
  4. Whether the applicant is guilty of laches
  5. Whether there is a valid Certificate of Taxation
  6. Whether the suit should be stayed until the hearing of High Court Civil Suit Number 489 of 2005

Reasoning

The respondent's reference over the taxation has not been heard and determined by the court as provided for by Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order. The applicant's application is premature.

Outcome

The application is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • An order to stay further proceedings on the motion dated 13.4.2015 for a period of 90 days

Remedies

  • Each party to meet its own costs

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Advocates Act
  • Limitations of Actions 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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case