Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Trikul Investments Limtied v Eliud Timoty Mwamunga

REPUBLIC OFM KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. (O.S.) 1109 OF 2000 IN THE MATTER OF A CAVEAT LODGED BY TRIKUL INVESTMENTS LTD. AND IN THE MATTER OF THE REGISTRATION OF TITLES ACT (CAP. 281) LAWS OF KENYA BETWEEN TRIKUL INVESTMENTS LIMTIED……………………………………….PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT AND ELIUD TIMOTY MWAMUNGA……………………………………..DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT RULING In this application the applicant is asking for an Order to extend the Caveat beyond the 45 days period specified in the Notice of the Registrar of Title dated 8th September, 2000. The application is supported by the affidavit of Singh Mangat in which he gives the facts leading to the present application. From the annextures to this affidavit there remains unpaid the sum of Shs.650,000 and a further sum of Shs.13,120 by the Defendant as a refund of the deposit which the applicant had paid. The letter dated 4.9.2000 by the Defendant to his lawyer. M/s GBM Kariuki & Company Advocates confirms this position. Since this letter was written there has been no explanation given by either the Defendants lawyers or the Defendant himself as to why the money has not been paid. There is no other security held by the plaintiff against this money. The Plaintiff is therefore justified in holding on the Caveat until the money is paid. The application is therefore allowed as prayed for in prayer one of the Originating Summons filed on 16.10.2000. The applicant will also be entitled to the costs of this application. Dated and delivered this 19th day of October, 2000. KASANGA MULWA JUDGE

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.