[2000] KEHC 204 (KLR)

[2000] KEHC 204 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant is justified in maintaining the caveat on the property because the respondent has not paid the outstanding sums of KES 650,000 and KES 13,120, and there is no other security held by the applicant for these amounts. The respondent's own letter confirmed the debt, and neither he nor...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] KEHC 204 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Trikul Investments Limited; Respondent: Eliud Timoty Mwamunga
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Children Miscellaneous Application 1109 of ??
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Extend Caveat
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Caveats, Registration of Titles, Land Security, Refund of Deposit
Source Language
en
Land and Property Caveats Registration of Titles Land Security Refund of Deposit

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trikul Investments Limited

Applicant

Eliud Timoty Mwamunga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Extend Caveat

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an extension of the caveat beyond the statutory 45 days period.
  2. 2 Whether the unpaid sums by the respondent justify the continued registration of the caveat.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has any other security for the unpaid amount.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant is justified in maintaining the caveat on the property because the respondent has not paid the outstanding sums of KES 650,000 and KES 13,120, and there is no other security held by the applicant for these amounts. The respondent's own letter confirmed the debt, and neither he nor his advocates provided any explanation for the non-payment. Therefore, the court allowed the application to extend the caveat as prayed in the originating summons, and awarded costs to the applicant.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The caveat lodged by the applicant is extended as prayed in prayer one of the Originating Summons filed on 16.10.2000.
  • The applicant is awarded the costs of this application.