preliminary objection must be a pure point of law whose determination would bring the dispute to a quick resolution.In that regard and noting the twin objections by Mr.Kaahwa, the one unprocedurally amended and that the Reference was that the 2nd Respondent was improperly impleaded ,portends no difficulty at all. 46.We say so, with respect ,because a clear reading of the record in this matter would show that when Counsel for the Applicant appeared before us on 13th July 2012,an adjournment was granted for him to do certain things including amending the Reference. By that time ,pleadings had not closed under Rule 45 of this Court’s Rules of Procedure and therefore under Rule 48(a) of the said Rules, he did not require any leave to amend the Reference and introduce the 2nd Respondent as a party to the proceedings. He therefore properly amended the Reference and our finding is that this limb of the objection is not supported by the law and the record and is consequently overruled. 47.Regarding the physical and visual manner of effecting an amendment, Rule 49 of the Rules merely requires a party after amending a pleading to deposit the amended version in the Registry and that is what the Applicant did on 31st August 2012 and after service thereof, the 2nd Respondent became a party to the proceedings and duly responded to the Amended 19