[2020] KEHC 9554 (KLR)
The court found that the order issued by the Chief Magistrate's Court on 3rd March 2020, which was to remain in force only until the same day, was ineffective and did not serve the intended purpose of preserving the funds in the respondents' accounts. The court held that it could not have been the intention of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 9554 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Assets Recovery Agency; Respondent: Lawpro Consultant Ltd; Respondent: Ali Reza Bassir; Respondent: Eco Bank; Interested Party: Kelvin Mayne Sylvia Juliette
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 6 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision Application / Ruling on Revision
- Outcome
- Application for revision allowed; freezing orders extended for fourteen days pending inter partes hearing.
- Judges
- EM Ngugi
- Legal Topics
- Freezing Orders, Asset Recovery, Criminal Procedure, Mutual Legal Assistance
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Assets Recovery Agency
Applicant
Lawpro Consultant Ltd
Respondent
Ali Reza Bassir
Respondent
Eco Bank
Respondent
Kelvin Mayne Sylvia Juliette
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision Application / Ruling on Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the order issued by the Chief Magistrate's Court on 3rd March 2020 served the intended purpose of preserving funds in the respondents' accounts.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its revisionary powers to extend the freezing orders to allow the applicant to seek mutual legal assistance.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the order issued by the Chief Magistrate's Court on 3rd March 2020, which was to remain in force only until the same day, was ineffective and did not serve the intended purpose of preserving the funds in the respondents' accounts. The court held that it could not have been the intention of the lower court to grant an order that was of no practical effect. Exercising its revisionary powers under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court extended the freezing orders as prayed for a period of fourteen days, pending inter partes hearing and determination of the application. This ensured that the funds remained preserved while the applicant sought mutual...
Court Disposition
Application for revision allowed; freezing orders extended for fourteen days pending inter partes hearing.
Orders
- Orders as prayed at prayer 4 of the application dated 5th March 2020 are granted for a period of fourteen days pending hearing and determination of the application inter partes.
- The application shall be served on the respondents for inter partes hearing or directions on 17th March 2020.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
ANTI CORRUPTION AND ECONOMIC CRIMES DIVISION
(CORAM: MUMBI NGUGI J)
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO 6 OF 2020
ASSETS RECOVERY AGENCY...............................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
LAWPRO CONSULTANT LTD....................................1ST RESPONDENT
ALI REZA BASSIR.......................................................2ND RESPONDENT
ECO BANK....................................................................3RD RESPONDENT
KELVIN MAYNE SYLVIA JULIETTE................INTERESTED PARTY
RULING ON REVISION
1. The applicant has filed the application dated 5th March 2020 in which he seeks revision of the orders issued by Hon. M. Mutuku (CM) on 3rd March 2020. The application is brought, inter alia, under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. In the orders the subject of the application which were made on 3rd March 2020 and issued on 4th March 2020 in CMCC No 3515 of 2019, the court directed that the freezing orders whose extension the applicant had sought would remain in force until the 4th day of March, 2020, the same day on which they were issued.
3. I have considered the application and the affidavit in support, as well as the various annexures exhibited on the said affidavit. I note that the applicant had obtained freezing orders against the respondents’ accounts on 10th September 2019. It had sought extension of the orders from the Chief Magistrate’s Court to enable it seek legal mutual assistance from Canada with respect to its investigations.
4. That being the case, it is evident that the order made on 3rd March 2020 and issued on 4th March 2020 and which indicates that it would remain in force until the same day of its issue would not serve the purpose for which it was intended, which is to preserve the funds held in the accounts the subject of the application. It cannot have been the intention of the court to grant an order that is basically of no purpose whatsoever.
5. I accordingly exercise powers of revision and hereby grant orders as prayed at prayer 4 of the application dated 5th March 2020 for a period of fourteen days pending hearing and determination of the application inter partes. The application shall be served on the respondents for inter partes hearing or directions on 17th March 2020.
Dated and Signed at Nairobi this 5th day of March 2020
MUMBI NGUGI
JUDGE