[2025] KEHC 6293 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the preservation of the subject motor vehicle, KCT 803E, on the basis that it was reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime and had been used in the commission of narcotics trafficking. The court held that the absence of a copy of records...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 6293 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Assets Recovery Agency; Respondent: Daniel Ogaye Oriaenyo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Anti Corruption and Economics Crime Miscellaneous Application E019 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Preservation Application
- Outcome
- preservation orders granted
- Judges
- BM Musyoki
- Legal Topics
- Proceeds of Crime, Asset Preservation Orders, Forfeiture Proceedings, Narcotics Trafficking
- 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
Daniel Ogaye Oriaenyo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Preservation Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case for the preservation of the subject motor vehicle alleged to be proceeds of crime.
- 2 Whether the absence of a copy of records proving ownership bars the issuance of preservation orders.
- 3 Whether the subject property can be preserved pending forfeiture proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the preservation of the subject motor vehicle, KCT 803E, on the basis that it was reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime and had been used in the commission of narcotics trafficking. The court held that the absence of a copy of records proving ownership did not preclude the issuance of preservation orders, as the focus in forfeiture proceedings is on the property rather than the offender. The court was satisfied that the statutory requirements under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act had been met and granted the preservation orders as sought, to remain in force for 90 days and to be published...
Court Disposition
preservation orders granted
Orders
- Prayers 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the application are granted, preserving motor vehicle KCT 803E.
- The preservation orders shall be published in the Gazette pursuant to Section 83(1) of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Assets Recovery Agency v Oriaenyo (Anti Corruption and Economics Crime Miscellaneous Application E019 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 6293 (KLR) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) (14 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 6293 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes
Anti Corruption and Economics Crime Miscellaneous Application E019 of 2025
BM Musyoki, J
May 14, 2025
Between
Assets Recovery Agency
Applicant
and
Daniel Ogaye Oriaenyo
Respondent
Ruling
1. The application before me is dated 13/5/2025 and is supported by affidavit of Benford Muriuki sworn on the same day. I hereby certify the application as urgent based on the grounds stated in the certificate of urgency.
2. The application seeks orders on the face of it which are to the effect of preserving motor vehicle registration number KCT 803E which is alleged to have been purchased using proceeds of crime. It is also averred that the motor vehicle was used in commission of a crime viz trafficking in narcotics and psychographic substances to wit cannabis sativa.
3. The deponent avers that the motor vehicle was under surveillance of DCI officers while transporting cannabis sativa on 28/3/2024 along Nairobi – Nakuru Highway. Before the officers could impound it, the motor vehicle was involved in an accident at Gilgil area and the occupants escaped but the respondent was soon thereafter arrested at the scene while making some calls. He was unable to explain his sources of income. The substance was tested and the respondent charged in Nakuru Chief Magistrate’s Criminal case number E815 OF 2024.
4. The deponent argues that the vehicle is registered to the respondent but what he has exhibited is only a hire purchase agreement. He has not exhibited a copy of records to prove ownership although paragraph 12 of the supporting affidavit makes reference to one. However, the lack of a copy of record cannot bar the court from issuing preservation orders as prayed because in forfeiture proceedings, the subject matter is the property rather than the offender.
5. Based on the above and other averments in the supporting affidavit, I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a good case for preservation orders.
6. I consequently grant prayers 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the application. The orders shall be published in the Gazette pursuant to Section 83 (1) of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti Money Laundering Act and remain in force for 90 days as provided for in Section 84 of the same Act.
This file is closed.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 24TH DAY OF MAY 2025. B.M MUSYOKIJUDGE14/5/2025