Ruling in respect of Client/Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 16.3.2026 and the Advocates’ Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 12.5.2026.
A. Introduction.
1. The instant application brought under Paragraph 11(1), (2) and (4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution and all other enabling provisions of the law, seeks leave to file reference out of time against the Ruling of the Taxing Officer delivered on 30.10.2023 and stay of execution of the warrants of arrest issued hereof. The application is supported by the grounds on the face thereof and the Affidavit of the Applicant sworn on 16th March 2026.
2. The Respondent has opposed the application through a Replying Affidavit sworn by Charles Midenga on the 12 th May, 2026 and a Preliminary Objection of even date principally stating that the application is res judicata and an abuse of the court process.
3. Both parties have filed submissions to the Application and the P.O.
Submissions by the Applicant
4. The Applicant submits that the Preliminary Objection is untenable and that the threshold of the doctrine of res judicata as codified under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act has not been met. Counsel submitted that the principles governing res judicata were succinctly set out in the case of Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission v Maina Kiai & 5 Others (2017) eKLR , where the Court held that for res judicata to apply, the following elements must be established: that the matter in issue must be identical in both proceedings; the parties must be the same; the issue must have been heard and finally determined and the Court determining the former suit must have been competent.
5. He submitted that the present application does not offend the doctrine for several reasons; that the substantive legality and correctness of the taxation had never been interrogated by the Court on merit. The previous application was dismissed principally on account of procedural non-compliance with Paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, which the applicant has sought to comply with in the present application; that the doctrine of res judicata ought not to be invoked rigidly where constitutional rights and substantive justice are implicated, to lock out a litigant from ventilating substantive grievances where justice demands otherwise. Counsel submitted that they have sought the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction under Paragraph 11(4).
6. On the question of the jurisdiction, Counsel submitted that this court has jurisdiction by dint of Paragraph 11 (4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
7. On sufficient cause, counsel submitted that the Applicant had demonstrated sufficient reasons for failure to comply with timelines. That delay was occasioned by procedural inadvertence and mistakes of previous counsel in failing to properly lodge a Notice of Objection under Paragraph 11(1), and this mistake should not be visited on the litigant and that the Applicant has consistently demonstrated intention to challenge the taxation. Counsel therefore invited the court to apply the provisions of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution and administer justice without undue regard to technicalities.
8. He submitted that the intended reference is arguable because the Applicant challenges inter alia ; Inflation of the subject matter value; Improper assessment of instruction fees; Award of getting-up fees despite absence of trial; Excessive attendances and duplicated charges and the failure by the Taxing Officer to properly exercise discretion.
9. On the stay of execution, Counsel submitted that the Applicant faces imminent arrest and committal to civil jail, unless stay of execution is granted and the intended Reference shall be rendered nugatory. He cited Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal, Nairobi Civil Application Number 6 of 1979 stating that stay orders should be granted where refusal would render an appeal nugatory and submitted that it would only be fair to send the bill herein back for taxation before a different taxing master.
Submissions by the Respondent
10. The Respondents contention on the other hand is that the Applicant has not properly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court since the issues she seeks to relitigate are res judicata and were settled in the rulings delivered by the Court (Hon. Lady Justice Njoki Mwangi) on 19.7.2024 and 31.10.2025 and invited the court to strike out the application with costs. He submitted that the P.O filed herein raises pure points of law, being the question of res judicata . That the issue of leave to file reference out of time against the Ruling of the Taxing Officer delivered on 30.10.2023 and stay of execution of warrants of arrest issued herein were fully determined by the rulings referred to above.
11. That indeed, at paragraph 11 of the ruling dated 19 th July, 2024, the Court framed one of the issues for determination, thus: “ii) Whether the client’s application for extension of time is merited” and the court went ahead to render itself at paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 thereof stating;
“16. This Court has perused the applicant’s letter dated 1st November, 2023 addressed to the Taxing Officer and I note that it is referenced ‘REQUEST FOR RULING’. The contents therein do not indicate, mention and/or refer to the client’s intention to challenge the Taxing Officer’s ruling of 30th October, 2023…
In this instance, and having considered its own circumstances, it is my finding that the applicant’s letter dated 1st November, 2023 addressed to the Taxing Officer does not suffice as a Notice of Objection contemplated under Rule 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, since it neither notifies the Court and the respondent of the applicant’s intention to challenge the Taxing Officer’s Ruling of 30th October, 2023, nor does it specify the item(s) objected to by the applicant. It is worthy of note that the applicant in her application is not seeking leave and/or extension of time to comply with the provisions of Rule 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order. In the premise, this Court finds that the applicant did not comply with the provisions of Rule 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
This Court’s jurisdiction to deal with a Reference is invoked upon compliance with the provisions of Rule 11(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. Further, a Notice of Objection serves the same purpose as a Memorandum of Appeal, therefore, failure to file and serve a Notice of Objection is not a technical issue that can be wished away by the provisions of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 for the sake of substantive justice, instead, it is fatal since it goes to the roots of the High Court’s jurisdiction to deal with a Reference….”
12. Counsel submitted that it is the same issues that the Applicant has invited thee Court to adjudicate upon by dint of the instant motion, but has again not annexed the Notice of Objection. He cited Court of Appeal in Kenya Commercial Bank Limited vs. Benjoh Amalgamated Limited [2017] eKLR and explained the doctrine of constructive res judicata and submitted that constructive res judicata is broader and encompasses all the issues in a dispute which, a party employing due diligence ought to have raised for consideration and urged the court not to allow the Applicant to relitigate, re-agitate and re-canvass the issues afresh.
13. Counsel further submitted that in any event, this is a matter where the Certificate of Costs and decree has since been issued hence the application is overtaken by events stating that the decree was issued pursuant to the application dated 8.12.2023 which the Applicant never responded to. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others vs. Royal Media Services Limited & 5 others [2014] KESC 53 (KLR) at page 65, paragraph 317, counsel submitted that estoppel prevents a party who previously litigated a claim (and lost), from taking a second bite at the cherry and that this is a long-standing common law doctrine for bringing finality to the process of litigation; for avoiding multiplicities of proceedings; and for the protection of the integrity of the administration of justice all in the cause of fairness in the settlement of disputes and submitted that the matter is res judicata , thus robbing this court of jurisdiction as enunciated in the Court of Appeal decision in Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” vs. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] eKLR.
14. On whether the Applicant can find solace in Article 159 (2) (d) of the Constitution, counsel relied on the Court of Appeal’s decisions in Telkom Kenya Limited vs. John Ochanda (Suing On His Own Behalf and on Behalf Of 996 Former Employees of Telkom Kenya Limited ) [2014] eKLR and Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat vs. the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and 6 Others [2013] eKLR and submitted that courts cannot aid in the bending or circumventing of rules and a shifting of goal posts for, while it may seem to aid one side, it unfairly harms the innocent party who strives to abide by the rules. Counsel urged the court to find that it has no jurisdiction.
Analysis and determination
15. I have considered the Application before court and the grounds on the face of it as well as the affidavit filed in support. I have also considered the preliminary objection and the Replying affidavit filed in opposition thereto and the rival submissions filed by the parties. The issues for determination are as follows;
a. Whether the Application herein is res judicata
b. And if not, whether the Application by the Client is merited.
Whether the Application is res judicata.
16. Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act states that “No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit…” And therefore, for a matter to be res judicata , the matter should have been directly and substantially in issue in a previous matter, between the same parties, litigating under the same titles and the matter should have been determined by a competent court.
17. No doubt that the issue herein is the Ruling of the taxing master delivered on the 30 th October, 2023 – taxing the advocate/client bill of costs, the Ruling of this court delivered on 24 th July 2024 - entering Judgment for the Respondent herein in terms of the taxed bill of costs and the further Ruling of the Court delivered on 19 th July, 2024 in respect of the Applicant’s chamber summons dated 8 th December, 2023, seeking leave to file a Reference out of time. This latter application was dismissed by the court. A further application was filed by the Applicant herein dated 2 nd January, 2025, seeking to set aside Warrants of Arrest and a conditional stay of execution, and instalment liquidation of the decretal amount. The Application was struck out for failure to comply with the provisions of Order 49 Rules 7 (2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
18. On the face of the Chamber summons dated 8 th December, 2023, the Applicant on prayer (3) prayed as follows; “a stay of execution of the decree on costs and on prayer 4, leave to file a reference out of time . The applicant therein was Pamela Nduku Mutua, who is the applicant herein and the Respondent was Midenga and Company Advocates, who are also the Respondents herein. That application was heard and determined by this court, which for all purposes is a competent court to hear such an application.
19. The Applicant argues that because the Application was struck out and the substantive legality and correctness of the taxation had never been interrogated by the Court on merit, then the instant application does not offend the doctrine of Res judicata . His argument is that the previous application was dismissed principally on account of procedural non-compliance with Paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, which the applicant has sought to comply with in the present application.
20. I have considered that argument. One of the issues for determination in the Ruling of the court delivered on the 19 th July, 2024 is whether the Application for extension was merited and the court went ahead to render itself in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the Ruling. The Supreme Court in Kenya Commercial Bank Limited vs. Muiri Cofee Estate Limited & another [2016] eKLR at page 11, paragraph 52 had an occasion to consider the doctrine of Res judicata and stated as follows; “ that res judicata is a doctrine of substantive law, its essence being that once the legal rights of parties have been judicially determined, such edict stands as a conclusive statement as to those rights.”
21. Being guided by the Supreme Court decision in Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others vs. Royal Media Services Limited & 5 others [2014] KESC 53 (KLR) at page 65, paragraph 317, My finding is that the merits of the Application for extension of time to file a Reference out of time was judicially determined and the decision of the court is conclusive in the subject. The doctrine of estoppel prevents a party who previously litigated a claim (and lost), from taking a second bite at the cherry and in line with the long-standing common law doctrine for bringing finality to the process of litigation; avoiding multiplicities of proceedings; and for the protection of the integrity of the administration of justice all in the cause of fairness in the settlement of disputes.
22. And having stated that I find that the instant application is res judicata , thus robbing this court of jurisdiction as enunciated in Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” vs. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] eKLR.
23. And to put this matter to rest, even having found that this matter is res judicata , I will comment on the application that the Applicant has tried to relitigate, in view of the fact that the Applicant submits that the mistakes earlier committed were by counsel and substantive justice under Article 159 (2) (d) of the Constitution would require that the court determines the issues without due regard to technicalities.
24. In the ruling delivered on 19.7.2024, the court held that a Notice of Objection serves the same purpose as a Memorandum of Appeal., and therefore, failure to file and serve a Notice of Objection is not a technical issue that can be wished away by the provisions of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution for the sake of substantive justice, instead, it is fatal since it goes to the roots of the High Court’s jurisdiction to deal with a Reference.
25. Based on that finding, allowing the Applicant to reintroduce this application, this Court would be sitting on its own appeal, which would be against the tenets of fair administration of Justice.
26. In conclusion, my finding is that the application dated the 16 th March, 2026 is res judicata, it is struck out, the preliminary objection dated 12 th May, 2026 is upheld with costs to the Respondent.
Ruling delivered, dated and signed virtually at Nairobi
This 18 th day of September, 2026.
In the Presence of :
Lispa – Court Assistant
Mr Kimanthi…………………… for the Applicant/Client
Mr Midenga………. …………for Advocate/Respondent
Page 1 of 6
A. Introduction.
1. The instant application brought under Paragraph 11(1), (2) and (4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution and all other enabling provisions of the law, seeks leave to file reference out of time against the Ruling of the Taxing Officer delivered on 30.10.2023 and stay of execution of the warrants of arrest issued hereof. The application is supported by the grounds on the face thereof and the Affidavit of the Applicant sworn on 16th March 2026.
2. The Respondent has opposed the application through a Replying Affidavit sworn by Charles Midenga on the 12 th May, 2026 and a Preliminary Objection of even date principally stating that the application is res judicata and an abuse of the court process.
3. Both parties have filed submissions to the Application and the P.O.
Submissions by the Applicant
4. The Applicant submits that the Preliminary Objection is untenable and that the threshold of the doctrine of res judicata as codified under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act has not been met. Counsel submitted that the principles governing res judicata were succinctly set out in the case of Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission v Maina Kiai & 5 Others (2017) eKLR , where the Court held that for res judicata to apply, the following elements must be established: that the matter in issue must be identical in both proceedings; the parties must be the same; the issue must have been heard and finally determined and the Court determining the former suit must have been competent.
5. He submitted that the present application does not offend the doctrine for several reasons; that the substantive legality and correctness of the taxation had never been interrogated by the Court on merit. The previous application was dismissed principally on account of procedural non-compliance with Paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, which the applicant has sought to comply with in the present application; that the doctrine of res judicata ought not to be invoked rigidly where constitutional rights and substantive justice are implicated, to lock out a litigant from ventilating substantive grievances where justice demands otherwise. Counsel submitted that they have sought the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction under Paragraph 11(4).
6. On the question of the jurisdiction, Counsel submitted that this court has jurisdiction by dint of Paragraph 11 (4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
7. On sufficient cause, counsel submitted that the Applicant had demonstrated sufficient reasons for failure to comply with timelines. That delay was occasioned by procedural inadvertence and mistakes of previous counsel in failing to properly lodge a Notice of Objection under Paragraph 11(1), and this mistake should not be visited on the litigant and that the Applicant has consistently demonstrated intention to challenge the taxation. Counsel therefore invited the court to apply the provisions of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution and administer justice without undue regard to technicalities.
8. He submitted that the intended reference is arguable because the Applicant challenges inter alia ; Inflation of the subject matter value; Improper assessment of instruction fees; Award of getting-up fees despite absence of trial; Excessive attendances and duplicated charges and the failure by the Taxing Officer to properly exercise discretion.
9. On the stay of execution, Counsel submitted that the Applicant faces imminent arrest and committal to civil jail, unless stay of execution is granted and the intended Reference shall be rendered nugatory. He cited Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal, Nairobi Civil Application Number 6 of 1979 stating that stay orders should be granted where refusal would render an appeal nugatory and submitted that it would only be fair to send the bill herein back for taxation before a different taxing master.
Submissions by the Respondent
10. The Respondents contention on the other hand is that the Applicant has not properly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court since the issues she seeks to relitigate are res judicata and were settled in the rulings delivered by the Court (Hon. Lady Justice Njoki Mwangi) on 19.7.2024 and 31.10.2025 and invited the court to strike out the application with costs. He submitted that the P.O filed herein raises pure points of law, being the question of res judicata . That the issue of leave to file reference out of time against the Ruling of the Taxing Officer delivered on 30.10.2023 and stay of execution of warrants of arrest issued herein were fully determined by the rulings referred to above.
11. That indeed, at paragraph 11 of the ruling dated 19 th July, 2024, the Court framed one of the issues for determination, thus: “ii) Whether the client’s application for extension of time is merited” and the court went ahead to render itself at paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 thereof stating;
“16. This Court has perused the applicant’s letter dated 1st November, 2023 addressed to the Taxing Officer and I note that it is referenced ‘REQUEST FOR RULING’. The contents therein do not indicate, mention and/or refer to the client’s intention to challenge the Taxing Officer’s ruling of 30th October, 2023…
In this instance, and having considered its own circumstances, it is my finding that the applicant’s letter dated 1st November, 2023 addressed to the Taxing Officer does not suffice as a Notice of Objection contemplated under Rule 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, since it neither notifies the Court and the respondent of the applicant’s intention to challenge the Taxing Officer’s Ruling of 30th October, 2023, nor does it specify the item(s) objected to by the applicant. It is worthy of note that the applicant in her application is not seeking leave and/or extension of time to comply with the provisions of Rule 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order. In the premise, this Court finds that the applicant did not comply with the provisions of Rule 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order.
This Court’s jurisdiction to deal with a Reference is invoked upon compliance with the provisions of Rule 11(1) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. Further, a Notice of Objection serves the same purpose as a Memorandum of Appeal, therefore, failure to file and serve a Notice of Objection is not a technical issue that can be wished away by the provisions of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 for the sake of substantive justice, instead, it is fatal since it goes to the roots of the High Court’s jurisdiction to deal with a Reference….”
12. Counsel submitted that it is the same issues that the Applicant has invited thee Court to adjudicate upon by dint of the instant motion, but has again not annexed the Notice of Objection. He cited Court of Appeal in Kenya Commercial Bank Limited vs. Benjoh Amalgamated Limited [2017] eKLR and explained the doctrine of constructive res judicata and submitted that constructive res judicata is broader and encompasses all the issues in a dispute which, a party employing due diligence ought to have raised for consideration and urged the court not to allow the Applicant to relitigate, re-agitate and re-canvass the issues afresh.
13. Counsel further submitted that in any event, this is a matter where the Certificate of Costs and decree has since been issued hence the application is overtaken by events stating that the decree was issued pursuant to the application dated 8.12.2023 which the Applicant never responded to. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others vs. Royal Media Services Limited & 5 others [2014] KESC 53 (KLR) at page 65, paragraph 317, counsel submitted that estoppel prevents a party who previously litigated a claim (and lost), from taking a second bite at the cherry and that this is a long-standing common law doctrine for bringing finality to the process of litigation; for avoiding multiplicities of proceedings; and for the protection of the integrity of the administration of justice all in the cause of fairness in the settlement of disputes and submitted that the matter is res judicata , thus robbing this court of jurisdiction as enunciated in the Court of Appeal decision in Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” vs. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] eKLR.
14. On whether the Applicant can find solace in Article 159 (2) (d) of the Constitution, counsel relied on the Court of Appeal’s decisions in Telkom Kenya Limited vs. John Ochanda (Suing On His Own Behalf and on Behalf Of 996 Former Employees of Telkom Kenya Limited ) [2014] eKLR and Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat vs. the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and 6 Others [2013] eKLR and submitted that courts cannot aid in the bending or circumventing of rules and a shifting of goal posts for, while it may seem to aid one side, it unfairly harms the innocent party who strives to abide by the rules. Counsel urged the court to find that it has no jurisdiction.
Analysis and determination
15. I have considered the Application before court and the grounds on the face of it as well as the affidavit filed in support. I have also considered the preliminary objection and the Replying affidavit filed in opposition thereto and the rival submissions filed by the parties. The issues for determination are as follows;
a. Whether the Application herein is res judicata
b. And if not, whether the Application by the Client is merited.
Whether the Application is res judicata.
16. Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act states that “No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit…” And therefore, for a matter to be res judicata , the matter should have been directly and substantially in issue in a previous matter, between the same parties, litigating under the same titles and the matter should have been determined by a competent court.
17. No doubt that the issue herein is the Ruling of the taxing master delivered on the 30 th October, 2023 – taxing the advocate/client bill of costs, the Ruling of this court delivered on 24 th July 2024 - entering Judgment for the Respondent herein in terms of the taxed bill of costs and the further Ruling of the Court delivered on 19 th July, 2024 in respect of the Applicant’s chamber summons dated 8 th December, 2023, seeking leave to file a Reference out of time. This latter application was dismissed by the court. A further application was filed by the Applicant herein dated 2 nd January, 2025, seeking to set aside Warrants of Arrest and a conditional stay of execution, and instalment liquidation of the decretal amount. The Application was struck out for failure to comply with the provisions of Order 49 Rules 7 (2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
18. On the face of the Chamber summons dated 8 th December, 2023, the Applicant on prayer (3) prayed as follows; “a stay of execution of the decree on costs and on prayer 4, leave to file a reference out of time . The applicant therein was Pamela Nduku Mutua, who is the applicant herein and the Respondent was Midenga and Company Advocates, who are also the Respondents herein. That application was heard and determined by this court, which for all purposes is a competent court to hear such an application.
19. The Applicant argues that because the Application was struck out and the substantive legality and correctness of the taxation had never been interrogated by the Court on merit, then the instant application does not offend the doctrine of Res judicata . His argument is that the previous application was dismissed principally on account of procedural non-compliance with Paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, which the applicant has sought to comply with in the present application.
20. I have considered that argument. One of the issues for determination in the Ruling of the court delivered on the 19 th July, 2024 is whether the Application for extension was merited and the court went ahead to render itself in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the Ruling. The Supreme Court in Kenya Commercial Bank Limited vs. Muiri Cofee Estate Limited & another [2016] eKLR at page 11, paragraph 52 had an occasion to consider the doctrine of Res judicata and stated as follows; “ that res judicata is a doctrine of substantive law, its essence being that once the legal rights of parties have been judicially determined, such edict stands as a conclusive statement as to those rights.”
21. Being guided by the Supreme Court decision in Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others vs. Royal Media Services Limited & 5 others [2014] KESC 53 (KLR) at page 65, paragraph 317, My finding is that the merits of the Application for extension of time to file a Reference out of time was judicially determined and the decision of the court is conclusive in the subject. The doctrine of estoppel prevents a party who previously litigated a claim (and lost), from taking a second bite at the cherry and in line with the long-standing common law doctrine for bringing finality to the process of litigation; avoiding multiplicities of proceedings; and for the protection of the integrity of the administration of justice all in the cause of fairness in the settlement of disputes.
22. And having stated that I find that the instant application is res judicata , thus robbing this court of jurisdiction as enunciated in Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” vs. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] eKLR.
23. And to put this matter to rest, even having found that this matter is res judicata , I will comment on the application that the Applicant has tried to relitigate, in view of the fact that the Applicant submits that the mistakes earlier committed were by counsel and substantive justice under Article 159 (2) (d) of the Constitution would require that the court determines the issues without due regard to technicalities.
24. In the ruling delivered on 19.7.2024, the court held that a Notice of Objection serves the same purpose as a Memorandum of Appeal., and therefore, failure to file and serve a Notice of Objection is not a technical issue that can be wished away by the provisions of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution for the sake of substantive justice, instead, it is fatal since it goes to the roots of the High Court’s jurisdiction to deal with a Reference.
25. Based on that finding, allowing the Applicant to reintroduce this application, this Court would be sitting on its own appeal, which would be against the tenets of fair administration of Justice.
26. In conclusion, my finding is that the application dated the 16 th March, 2026 is res judicata, it is struck out, the preliminary objection dated 12 th May, 2026 is upheld with costs to the Respondent.
Ruling delivered, dated and signed virtually at Nairobi
This 18 th day of September, 2026.
In the Presence of :
Lispa – Court Assistant
Mr Kimanthi…………………… for the Applicant/Client
Mr Midenga………. …………for Advocate/Respondent
Page 1 of 6