Mary Wairimu Dames v Langata Development Co.Ltd [2016] KEHC 4360 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI

ELC NO. 1413 OF 2007

(FORMALLY HCCC NO. 1077 OF 2004)

MARY WAIRIMU DAMES………………………………………………..PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

LANGATA DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD…………………………..……….DEFENDANT

JUDGEMENT.

By an Amended Plaint dated 16th February 2011, the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant and sought for judgment against the defendant for:-

a. A declaration that the transfer and registration of 85. 3 acres forming a portion of LR No 7240/23 to the defendant was null and void.

b. An order of re-transfer of 85. 3 acres out of land parcel LR No 7240/23 to the plaintiff

c. Cost and interest

d. An order for eviction of the defendant itself/its agents/ servants/ tenants/ employees/members/directors or any other person or entity claiming proprietary rights or any interests whatsoever through it on LR No 7240/23.

e. An order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant itself/ its agents/ servants/tenants/employees/members/directors or any other person or entity claiming proprietary rights or any interests whatsoever through the defendant from subdividing/occupying/ developing/ constructing/ selling/alienating/wasting or otherwise dealing with the suit premises namely LR No 7240/23 until the suit is fully heard and determined.

f. An order for the Deputy Registrar to execute all relevant transfer documents on behalf of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff fro transfer of a portion of land measuring approximately 85. 3 acres out of LR No 7240/23 if the defendant fails to do so voluntarily.

g. In the alternative and without prejudice to the above compensation for the 85. 3 acres at the prevailing /current market value at the time of the determination of this suit.

The facts of the claim is that the by an agreement dated 6th February 1989, the plaintiff sold to the 1st defendant a portion of her land measuring approximately 672 acres out of land parcel LR No 7240/2. She applied and obtained the Land Control Board Consent for the subdivision of her land parcel LR No 7240/2 and consent for the subsequent transfer of the said 672 acres to the defendant. The plaintiff avers that the defendant and a surveyor colluded and delineated a portion of land measuring about 757. 3 acres instead of the agreed 672 acres vide a sale agreement and paid no consideration was paid to 85. 3 acres. She therefore contends that the transfer and registration of the entire suit property into the defendant’s name was done fraudulently, illegally and unlawfully. That the transfer was done without her knowledge that the size of the suit property was in excess by 85. 3 acres aver and above the agreed purchase property .That she was never aware of the said fraud until 2004 when the Municipal Council of Thika demanded rates from the plaintiff which demand disclosed size of the land parcel subject matter. That the defendant has never occupied the 85. 3 acres.

Her claim is that the Register of land parcel LR No 7240/23 be rectified under section 25 of Chapter 281 Laws of Kenya deleting the proprietor therein and restoring the plaintiff s the proprietor of 85. 3 acres out of LR No 7240/23 and those in occupation thereof should be evicted. She stated that she is legally entitled to a portion of the suit premises measuring approximately 85. 3 acres and the purported transfer of the suit premises which included the portion measuring approximately 85. 3 acres thereof be nullified as it is otherwise null and void ab initio. She stated and particularized the defendant’s instances of fraud as causing the plaintiff to execute documents stating land measurements which were in hectares while the sale agreement stated measurements in acres. Taking undue advantage of the education background of the plaintiff. Causing the transfer to the defendant 85. 3 acres without obtaining the necessary consent from the Land Control Board and without following the rightful and lawful procedures. Causing the plaintiff to transfer 85. 3 acres without paying for it in any sale agreement and any consideration at all and obtaining title to the suit premises through collusion.

The defendant in its amended defence stated that the plaintiff’s suit is barred under the Limitation of Actions Act as the agreement of sale was entered into o 6th February 1989 and the suit property transferred to the defendant on 25th August 1992 and has been in possession of the land until it subdivided it and sold to third parties. The plaintiff in a letter dated 24th February 1994 discharged the defendant from further claims  directly or indirectly connected with the sale of the suit land and she is stopped from making a claim on the basis of a sale agreement made over 14 years before this suit was filed in October 2004. It further stated that the plaintiff remedies sought by the plaintiff cannot be granted because the defendant was a land buying company  and upon purchase the property was subdivided and various portions thereof sold to individual third parties who have been in occupation of the land and have substantially developed their individual holdings. That even if there was fraud or misrepresentation the individual purchasers of the various subdivisions thereof were not parties to the alleged fraud or misrepresentation. It further stated that by an agreement dated 6th February 1989 the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit property to the defendant and the said agreement provided that the plaintiff would at her own cost cause the subdivision of the portion being sold by her be surveyed and obtain the deed plan for such portion and hand it over to her advocate. In accordance to the agreement the plaintiff’s surveyor Mr. Harunani carried out the subdivision and obtained a deed plan for the portion that was sold to the defendant. The title was obtained by the Plaintiff’s advocates and subsequently forwarded to the defendant’s advocates who registered the transfer of the said portion. The defendant did not collude with the plaintiff’s surveyor as alleged; it did not mislead the plaintiff. It further denied that that the plaintiff transferred to it any land that it had not paid for and prayed that the plaintiff’s suit be dismissed with costs.

During the hearing of evidence in court, the plaintiff testified that  she sold 672 acres of land to Langata Development Company Limited in 1989. She stated that the purchase price for an acre of land was Ksh 23,500/= and would have received Ksh 15,792,000/= which took long for it to be paid. When she complained of late payment she was paid some interest. She stated that she obtained consent to subdivide the land and engaged a surveyor to subdivide it and consent to transfer. She contended that the transfer to defendant was more than what she had paid them and she discovered this through the rates demand she received from Thika Municipality .She explained that the demand was for 1062 acreas yet she had sold a large portion and on enquiring she found that she had sold a larger portion to the defendant .She stated that she transferred 672 acres to the defendant as it was indicated in the sale agreement but the transfer indicated 306. 5 Hectares. She stated that the 306 Ha was never translated to acres. She stated that she did not sell 757. 3 acres.  She has therefore come to court to ask the defendant to return the 85. 3 acres adding that the land has not been given to members. On cross examination, she stated that her land was 1062 acres and she was selling 672 acres. She stated that she did not sign the transfer document. She stated that when she received the demand she did not take action until she filed this suit. She withdrew the claim of fraud against the defendant. She did not sue her advocates. She confirmed that she resided on the land and that there are subdivisions with people in occupation.

PW2 Charles Thibuthi Gathogo a licensed land surveyor. He stated that he gave a report of the survey of subdivision of LR No 7240/2 and he gave the report but was disturbed with the discrepancies when he looked at the subdivisions A, B, C and D and noticed the discrepancies in Plot C and D. He stated that plot C was supposed to be 300 acres and D 672 acres and noted that there was a problem with the survey plan. He noted that portion C had 214 acres and part D had 757. 36 acres instead of 672 acres. He stated that he saw the sale agreement and the transfer and noted that the land that was sold was 672 acres. He also noted that the survey plan did not show two portions and did not understand why the two plots were amalgamated by a brace. He stated that the subdivision was approved by the Commissioner of Lands but the said approval is not accompanied by a letter. There was need for consent from the land control board and that since the suit property was registered under the Cap 281 [RTA] for it to be subdivided there needed to be a change of user, that there would be no titles without properly approved plans. He also noted that the land changed from RTA to RTA. He stated that the since the regimes changed there was no evidence that the regimes were gazette. On cross examination he stated that the survey plan was repaired by Alunami & Associates who were surveyors and the same needed to be approved by the sellers. He stated that a plan is a prepared subdivision but he could not point out the 85 acres since it required several channels. He stated that the application on the subdivision does not connote the size of the plot and added that the director was not involved in the subdivision. He stated that the proposal was done by Alunami but he could not tell who approved it. He stated that he could not tell which subdivisions were valid and which were not valid. He confirmed that the deed plan was approved after the survey plan has been prepared and since Alunami prepared the deed plans he was at a position to explain the discrepancies.

PW3- John Andrew Dames stated that he was PW1’s son and was with her during the sale and transaction of the suit property. He stated that they realized an anomaly during the payment of rates and got a professional who found out that there were 757 acres instead of 672 acres which was an excess of 85 acres. He stated that the subdivision was done by Alunami who was brought by the purchaser. On cross examination he stated that the instrument for transfer was should have been 672 acres. He confirmed that they had been paying rates and the defendant had not been paying the rates until 2004 when they realized the anomaly.

After the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant called its witnesses.

DW1-Eliud Anthony Kanuki one of the directors of the defendant stated that the defendant got into a sale agreement with the plaintiff who identified the land to them/He stated that the plaintiff instructed a surveyor that the defendants were buying 672 acres and the subdivision was done by the plaintiff. He stated that the surveyor was known as Harumi & Associates .The land was subdivided and they were given title. He stated that since the defendant was a land buying company the land was subdivided and sold to members and the amount paid to the plaintiff as purchase price was money from members who had paid. He stated that the land was subdivided into 60 by 40 ft plots which translated to ¼ and ½ plots and got approximately 6000 plots in total and all plots are sold to different persons. He further stated that before allocating the plots they provided for utilities i.e. schools, market and sewage and roads. He stated that they requested for the entry of the land. He further testified that the sale agreement was prepared by Mahinda & Khosla Advocates and the transfer instrument was signed by the vendor. She was selling 306 Ha and the transfer was registered on 7th August 1992 and argued that the vendor was aware that she was selling 306 Ha to the defendant. He added that there was about 16 acres not in use accorded to power way leaves and portions of unusable land. He further stated that the plaintiff was never deprived of any land by Harun Associates and stated that they did not get more land that what they purchased. That it was not a mistake on their part. He stated that they were interested in 672 acres and added that of Haruni excised more than what was supposed to be done then it would be a matter between the vendor and Haruni Associates. He stated that when the vendor signed the transfer instrument she must have been aware of she was signing. He denied any collusion with the surveyors. On cross examination he stated that he was the finance director of the defendant and at the Board of Directors. He stated that they took a tour at the land and identified the portion they wanted to buy. He stated that the suit property was situated along Garrisa Road, 12th Battalion past Happy Valley, Gatundu Nyakinyua farm in a huge track of land known as Marydale Farm. He stated that he was aware that there was an additional 85 acres of land added to their land and that the 85 acres were not covered in the sale agreement. They invited people to buy the subdivided plots and the plots were in three types namely 60x 40 ft at 5000 each, ¼ at 10,000/= each, ½ at 20,000/= each and were in the process of getting title deeds for those who purchased them. He further stated that the plaintiff subdivide the land into four  portions namely Portion A 27 acres, B 62 acres, C 672 acres and D 300 acres. He stated that there was injunction that stopped development of land.

DW-2 Livingstone Kamande Gitaua surveyor. He stated that the survey of the suit property was done by Harunani who prepared in 1989 and it was prepared by the purchasers and the buyers. He stated that he subdivided what had been purchased by the defendant. He stated that the original agreement was for 700 acres and stated that there was a likelihood of an error in the subdivision. He stated that he came when everything had been concluded but confirmed that there was an error in acreages. He said that the land had not been fully developed but all the portions had been sold away. He confirmed that there were portions that were unusable since they were marshy. He stated that it was not possible to remove 83 acres from that land. On cross examination he stated that his client was the defendant .He further stated that he facilitates conveyancing and they come with share certificates and ballot papers after they have paid survey fees. He stated that they seek approval from relevant authorities and getting consent from the Commissioner of lands. He stated that he cannot do his job without the consent of the Commissioner of Lands. He stated that the land to be subdivided was 306 Ha which was 783. 3 acres. He said that initially the land was agricultural and later it was to be leased as residential. He further stated that they asked for change of user since it was part of the approval. He produced a certificate for change of user and a letter from the Commissioner for lands. He stated that the schemes were approved and some of the plans were 60x 40 ft .He stated that he was not involved in the subdivision which was done by Sapomo Engineering. He stated that the marshy land had been subdivided and given out to people. He stated that there was a brace connecting two portions of land and one title given. He did not know the reason the brace was put and why the two portions were treated as one portion of land and why the surveyor procured one title.

DW3-Kenneth Ng’ang’a Kamau a photographer and director of Studio 1 Limited. He stated that he was engaged by the defendant to take photographs that were brought to court.

DW4- Jane Wanjiru Waciuri a teacher at Thika Baracks Primary School. She stated that she bought a part of the land forming part of Langata Development Company Limited. She purchased her plot on 2/5/2008 from one Jane Wairimu Njoroge. She paid Ksh 400,000/=for the plot. She has developed the plot and resides on the plot with her family. On cross examination she stated that she has a share certificate. She stated that she did not know if there were new housings coming up in the area but added that there were many people carrying out construction on the land.

At the close of viva voce evidence in court, parties filed their written submissions. The plaintiff in her submissions filed in Court on 19th March 2015 started their submissions by highlighting the suit from its inception to the conclusion. She highlighted the undisputed issues where she stated that she was the owner of LR No 7240/2/3 which was 1062 acres of land. She sold 672 acres to the defendants vide a sale agreement dated 6th February 1989 at a price of Ksh 23,500/= totaling to Ksh 15,792,000/= which was fully paid. The plaintiff subdivided her land into four portions as follows:-

Portion A-27 acres

Portion B- 62acres

Portion C-672 acres which was the portion sold to the defendant

Portion D- 300 acres

She stated that the consent for transfer was for Portion C and was the size agreed by the parties in the sale agreement. She also stated that parties executed a transfer which indicated the size of the land to be transferred from the plaintiff’s land being a portion measuring 757. 3 acres and a title processed and completed in favour of the defendant for the said 757. 3 acres. She stated that she noted the anomaly when paying for rates at the Thika Municipal Council after she confirmed that the defendant had not effected the transfer with the municipality  and a further search at the Ministry of Lands showed that the land transferred was 757. 3 acres and when they sought the help of PW2, he converted the acreage of the land transferred to the defendant it showed that the there was a portion of land measuring 85. 3 acres that had been transferred to the defendant yet it was not subject of the sale. The defendant offered to purchase the excess portion but the parties could not agree on the purchase price. She defended herself that this suit was time barred and stated that when she realized the fraud she filed suit immediately. She also stated that she trusted her lawyers and had no reason to check what was transferred to the defendant.

The defendant in its submissions stated that a fundamental principle as propounded by Lord Cains LC in Hughes vs. Metropolitan Railway Company (1874-80)ALL ER  where it stated that the plaintiff will not be allowed to enforce his rights where it would be inequitable having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties. It added that to establish such equity is not necessary to show detriment and indeed the defendant may have benefited from the representation and yet it may be inequitable at least without reasonable notice for the presenter to enforce his legal rights. The plaintiff’s representative represented to the defendant that the plaintiff was selling the portion C to the defendant and therefore the defendant was going by the subdivision as carried out by Harunani and since the defendant was not a party to the subdivision it took it as was presented to it. It further stated that if the extra land was to revert to the plaintiff it would lead to an absurd situation some 25 years after the event since the land is occupied as per the evidence adduced. The defendant relied on the principle enunciated by Lord Cairns and stated that there was no way the plaintiff can now seek the remedies is seeks as all that was now water under the bridge and the if the plaintiff had any cause of action it would be against Harunani and Kholsa who were her then advocates and further the plaintiff cannot plead that she did not know what she was signing and cannot plead ignorance of what she was signing. On fraud the defendant stated that there was no evidence to show that the defendant caused the plaintiff to execute documents showing area in hectares, the defendants did not take advantage of the plaintiff and there is no evidence to show that the defendant colluded with the Commissioner of Lands to register the title.

That was the evidence tendered before  this Court and the submissions therein . The issue for determination herein is whether the Defendant fraudulently caused 85. 3 acres to be transferred to it and “ whether the 1st defendant titled issued on  25th August 1992, can be impeached because of the stated fraud.

From the available evidence , there is no doubt that the Plaintiff herein Mary Wairimu Dames was the registered owner of LR No. 7240/23 situated in Thika which was measuring 1062 acres.

There is also no doubt that in the year 1989 she intended to sell a portion of that land and she subsequently entered into a sale agreement Exhibit No.2 with the Defendant herein for sale of 672 acres at a piece of 23,500 per acre thus totalling to 15,792,000/= . The said sale agreement is dated 6/2/1989 . There is no doubt that the purchase price was fully paid though after the completion period and the Plaintiff herein signed a document Ref.Exhibit 7, discharging the Defendants of any claim or liability .

From the Plaintiff’s evidence she had allegedly divided the said land into four portion i.e A with 27 acres B with 62 acres ,C 672 acres and D 300 acres . It was the portion marked as C with 672 acres that the Plaintiff intended to sale to the Defendant herein. It is also not in dispute that the consent to transfer the land was granted for portion of land measuring 672 acres and the sale agreement signed by the parties was also for 672 acres.

It is also evident that the parties executed the transfer document and the portion of land to be transferred was 306. 5 Hectares . It is also evident that the certificate of title issued to Langata Developement Ltd the Defendant herein was for 306. 5 Ha. From the avaibale documents and evidence , the Plaintiff herein in the transaction was represented by the Law firm of Mahinda Khogla Advocates whereas the Defendant was represented by Kamere & Kamere Advocates . The survey work was done by Mr Harunani of Harunani surveyors who completed the work and subdivision was done . The registration of the title was done in 1992 and the defendant took possession of its purchased portion which according to the certificate of  title was 306. 5 Hactares, but according to the sale agreement was 672 acres . The Plaintiff (PW1 ) and her witness PW3 ( John Dames) her son testified that in the year 2000, the Municipal Council of Thika sent to the Plaintiff Land Rates demand which were high. Further Land Rates in the year 2004 a further rates damand was sent to the Plaintiff and the said Land Rates demand was for the whole portion of 1062 acres . PW3 decided to clarify from the Municipal Council of Thika what was the Plaintiff actual amount of Rates payment given that she had sold 672 acres to the Defendant. It was  when PW3 discovered that title held by the Defendant was for 306. 5 Ha and when the same was translated into acres, it came to 757. 3 acres which was an excess of 85. 3 acres . There is no doubt that the transfer in the name of the Defendant is for 306. 5 acres. Indeed there was no dispute that the said translated into 757. 3 acres .

The Defendant did not dispute that indeed the land registered in their name is for 306. 5 Hactares which is in excess of 85. 3 acres. However, the Defendant alleged that most of the land is unusable as it is marshy and very high voltage cables have passed over the whole land  and that the said land  has now been subdivided into several plots and sold to different persons (third parties) . The Defendant also denied participating in fraud in the said sub-division and registration and averred that the survey work was done by Mr Harunani, a surveyor contracted by the Plaintiff herein. On her part, the Plaintiff alleged that in their initial sale agreement , there was no mention of unusable land as the land was purchased as it was and the Defendant never raised any issue of unusable land therein. It was her further contention that all the land is usable and that the title is still intact as the Defendant has not registered the intended subdivisions . What is therefore not in dispute is that the Defendant purchased 672 acres and the consent for transfer was for 672 acres. However what the Defendant got registered in its certificate of title was 306. 5 Ha which transalates to 757. 3 acres.The Defendant therefore acquired excess of 85. 3 acres which it did not pay for nor was the consent given for the transfer  of the same.

The issue now for determination is whether the Defendant colluded with the surveyor or the Land Registrar to have this land transfered to it in excess of 85. 3 acres.

The Defendant has denied such collussion or fraud. It is not in doubt that the parties herein were represented by repute Firm of advocates then. It is common knowledge that in such transactions and where parties are represented, conveyance is done by the advocates and the parties themselves do not participate in the actual process of preparing the documents . It is  therefore assumed herein that the advocates representing the parties were supposed to carry duly diligence before the parties committed themselves to the transaction . This Court would assumet that is whta transipred in this transaction. It is also not in doubt that the survey work was done by Mr Harunani surveyor who was contracted or hired and paid by the Plaintiff herein. The Plaintiff signed the transfer form in the presence of her Advocate. The Plaintiff gave her evidence in fluent English and she cannot be said to be illitrate. Though she alleged that she never read the transfer document before signing it , there is no evidence that the representative of the Defendant were present when she signed the transfer document. Since Plaintiff has alleged fraud, then the same must be strictly proved. It is trite Law that where fraud is alleged , it must be strictly proved and the standard is higher that the ordinarily Civil Cases but not beyond reasonable doubt as in the criminal cases. See the case of Ratilal Gordhanbhai Patel Vs Iaji Makenji (1957) EA 314 , where it was held;-

“ Allegations of fraud must be strictly proved although the standard  of proof may not be so heavily  as to require proof beyond reasonable doubt, something more than a mere balance of  probabilities is required. A higher standard of proff is required  to establish such findings , proportionate to gravity of the offence  concerned”.

The Plaintiff herein therefore needed to prove  allegations of fraud on the part of the Defendant but on a higher standard.

It is evident that the conveyance work herein was done by two reputable Law firms . The Plaintiff and the Defendant signed  the documents and a certificate of title was eventually issued to the Defendant. Indeed a mistake or misrepresntation of the acreage did occur herein. That was done through the survey work. The surveyor who did survey work has not been sued together with the Defendant . There was no evidence that the Defendant herein is the one who gave the amount of land to be transferred in Hectares to the Advocates who drew the transfer documents . The advocates representing the parties had a duty to confirm that the acreage transferred was indeed the one intended in the sale agreement or by the parties and tallied with the purchase . In the instant case , It seems the plaintiff was let down by her said advocates.

The disputed land herein was registered in the names of the defendant in 1992 under the Registration of Titles Act Cap 281 which provided in Section 23(1) that;-

“ The certificate of titles issued by the Registrar to a purchaser of land upon a transfer or transmission by the proprietor thereof shall be taken by all courts as conclusively evidence that the persons named therein as proprietor of land is the absolute subject to  .............and   the title of that proprietor shall not be subject to challenge except on the  ground s of fraud or misrepresentation to    which he is proved to be a “ party” .

The above position has been applied in many judicial pronouncements . I will refer to the case of Mbothu & 8 Others Vs Wairimu & II Others (1986) KLR 171 (quoted by the Defence) and also to the case of Ndege Wholesalers Ltd Vs Chikoo Investment Ltd and Another , Nairobi ( Milimani)High Court Civil Case No. 788 of 1997where the Court held that:-

“ Under Section 23(1) of the Registered Titles Act . It is clear that the title of the registered proprietor is not subjec to challenge execpt on the grounds of fraud or misrepresentation of which he is proved  to be a party”.

To my understanding under Section 23(1) of Registered Titles Act , the certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership and the said certificate of title cannot be impeached or defeatedunless there is evidence of fraud where the proprietor was part of it or knew about it.

In the instanct case , there is no evidence that the Defendant herein was involved in fraud as alleged by the Plaintiff or any misrepresentation . It is evident that there was mistake on the recording of the size of land sold to the Defendant . However, that mistake or mireprsentation cannot be attached or atributted to the Defendant as the conveyance work was done by the parties advocates and the survey work was done by Mr Harunani, surveyor who was contracted by the plaintiff herein.

It is also evident that the Defendant has sub-divided the land and it was alleged that it has sold most of it to different purchasers or third parties. Though the certificate of title is still in the name of the Defendant , there was evidence of subdivisions of the land into several small portions . The land is therefore not as it was when the Defendant purchased it from the Plaintiff.

However, it is evident that the Defendant is in possession of excess of 85. 3 acres which it never paid for and which the plaintiff had not intended to sell to the Defendant. The Defendant cannot keep that land without compensating the plaintiff for the same.

Having now considered the available evidence , the relevant laws  and the decided cases, the court finds that there is no evidence  Defendant herein participated in fraud and thus this Court cannot declare the Defendant’s title as null andvoid.

Having found that the Defendant’s title is not null and void, the Court declines to allow the Plaintiffs prayers No.b,d,e and f . However, on prayer No.g, since it is evident that the Defendant is holding 85. 3 acres execss of what it purchased from the Plaintiff and which  acreage  is included in the Defendants certificate of title which shows the Defendant land to be measuring 306. 5 Hactares which transalates to 757. 3 acres , then the Court finds that the Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for 85. 3 acres by the Defendant at the prevailing market rate.

On the issue of costs, the Defendant acknowledged being in possession of 85. 3 acres excess of what it purchased . If the defendant has rectified that anomally , way back after the discovery of the mistake herein, then this suit would not have been filed.

Consequently, the Court finds that the Defendant is liable to pay costs and interest as prayed in prayerNo.c.

The upshot of the foregoing is that  judgement is entered for the Plaintiff against , the Defendant in terms of prayer No. ‘g’ and ‘c’ of the amended Plaint dated 16th February,2011 .

It is so ordered.

Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 12th of  February, 2016

28 days Right of Appeal

L GACHERU

JUDGE

In the Presence of:-

M/s Mwachiro holding brief M/s Gichuhi for Plaintiff

Mr Njagi for the Defendant

Court:Judgement read in open Court in the presence of the above advocates.

Mr Njagi : I seek for interim stay of the Judgement for 30 days.

M/s Mwachiro : No objection

Court:

Stay of execution of Judgement for 30 days as prayed by the Defendant.

L.GACHERU

JUDGE