Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherELC MISC. APPLICATION NO. 225 OF 2016· [2020] KEELC 754 (KLR)

Kimani Richu & Associates Advoates v Centurion Holdings Limited [2020] KEELC 754 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
5 November 2020
BEB M Eboso
255 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan judge declined to rule twice on the same advocate-client fee dispute, handing it to a different judge for a fresh, impartial hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
These directions were issued by the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi in a miscellaneous application arising from an advocate-client dispute between Kimani Richu & Associates Advocates (Advocate/Respondent) and Centurion Holdings Limited (Client/Applicant). The matter was slated for ruling on a reference dated 22/11/2019 by Centurion Holdings Limited, canvassed through written submissions, challenging the Taxing Officer's award following a fresh taxation. In preparing the ruling, the judge observed that this was the second reference in the same file: on 25/5/2018 he had rendered a ruling on a similar reference by the advocate, in which he set aside the taxing officer's award and directed fresh taxation. The judge reasoned that, having already pronounced himself on some of the issues arising in the new reference, it would not be in the best interest of justice for him to determine the subsequent reference, which should instead be handled by a different judge. He accordingly directed that the file be mentioned before the Presiding Judge of the Environment and Land Court on 12/11/2020 for allocation to a different Judge for disposal of the reference, and apologised to the parties and their advocates. No costs order was made. The document is a direction rather than a determination of the reference, which remains pending before another judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the same judge should determine a second reference arising from the same file after having ruled on an earlier, similar reference

Holding

The judge declined to determine the second reference and directed reallocation to another judge in the interest of justice

Reasoning

The court noted this was the second reference in the same file. On 25/5/2018 the judge had set aside the taxing officer's award and directed fresh taxation. The present reference challenged the award in that subsequent taxation. Because the judge had already pronounced himself on some of the issues arising in the new reference, he concluded that determining it himself would not serve the best interest of justice, and referred the file for allocation to a different judge.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A judge who has previously pronounced himself on issues arising in a taxation reference should not determine a subsequent reference raising the same issues; such a reference should be allocated to a different judge

Court orders

#
  1. 1.This file be mentioned before the Presiding Judge of the Environment and Land Court on 12/11/2020 for allocation to a different Judge
  2. 2.The different Judge to dispose of the present reference which was canvassed through written submissions
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over advocate-client taxation references (statutory basis not expressly stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kimani Richu & Associates Advoates v Centurion Holdings Limited [2020] KEELC 754 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). ELC MISC. APPLICATION NO. 225 OF 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/754/eng@2020-11-05

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.