Skip to content
JudgmentPRIME BANK LIMITED VS PRIME BANK LIMITED1 min read

PRIME BANK LIMITED VS PRIME BANK LIMITED

High Court at Mombasa High Court · · Gregory Mutai

1. I have perused the Notice of Motion dated 19th January 2026, the affidavit in support thereof, sworn by Mr Vikram C Kanji and the documents annexed thereto. The application seeks an extension of the statutory period for presenting the charge dated 8th January 2025, as the 30-day period provided for in the Companies Act, 2015, for the doing of the said Act has lapsed. The application is brought under Sections 885(1)(a), 888(1) and 888(2) of the Companies Act Cap. 486 and Rule 8(b) of the Companies (High Court) Rules, Section 1A, 1B, and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, and Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. The applicant contends that the charge could not be presented within the statutory period due to factors beyond its control, as there was a delay in the registration of the same at the Lands Office, and that the same was finally registered on 9th January 2026, by which time the statutory period had lapsed. Mr Kanji deposed that no prejudice would be caused to the creditors and/or shareholders of the company if the application were allowed.
3. I have considered the said Notice of Motion application and the applicable law. In my view, the same has merit. In the circumstances the same is allowed. I extend the time for registering the charge dated 8th January 2025 by another 30 days. I make no orders as to costs, as this is a non-contentious matter.
4. As this matter is now concluded, I direct that the Court file be closed forthwith.
5. It is so ordered.
    PRIME BANK LIMITED VS PRIME BANK LIMITED PRIME BANK LIMITED VS PRIME BANK LIMITED