<p style="text-align: center;"><strong><u>JUDGMENT</u></strong></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>ANNAN J</strong>.This is a motion to strike out a caveat filed by the caveatrix through her solicitors, and the application is based on the ground that the caveatrix has neglected to file an affidavit of interest after service of the warning of the applicant. The preliminary issue which arises for determination is whether service was properly effected of the warning—namely whether the caveatrix was warned in terms of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), Order 60, r. 17. That rule requires that, &quot;The person filing the caveat shall be warned by a warning in writing.&quot; In the present case the certificate of service shows that there was no personal service on the caveatrix. Service was effected on her solicitor who had filed the caveat. After some initial doubt as to whether service effected on the solicitor should not be sufficient service on &quot;The person filing the caveat,&quot; I have come to the conclusion that rule 17 requires service on the caveatrix herself a…</p>