[2024] KEHC 6261 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 6261 (KLR)

The court found that the application for stay of execution had merit because the law, specifically Sections 92(6) and 97 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act, provides that a forfeiture order does not take effect until the conclusion of any appeal. The applicant had exhibited a Notice of Appeal,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 6261 (KLR)
Parties
Respondent: Assets Recovery Agency; Applicant: Abdinasir Hirbo Shande; Respondent: First Community Bank; Respondent: Galgalo Mohammed Liban
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Civil Suit E008 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay of execution allowed, subject to conditions.
Judges
EN Maina
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Forfeiture Orders, Proceeds of Crime, Anti Money Laundering
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Criminal Law Stay of Execution Forfeiture Orders Proceeds of Crime Anti Money Laundering

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Assets Recovery Agency

Respondent

Abdinasir Hirbo Shande

Applicant

First Community Bank

Respondent

Galgalo Mohammed Liban

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of execution should be granted pending appeal against a forfeiture order under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act.
  2. 2 Whether the filing of a Notice of Appeal, without a Memorandum of Appeal, is sufficient to warrant a stay of execution.
  3. 3 Whether the forfeiture order takes effect before the conclusion of an appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for stay of execution had merit because the law, specifically Sections 92(6) and 97 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act, provides that a forfeiture order does not take effect until the conclusion of any appeal. The applicant had exhibited a Notice of Appeal, which was sufficient to trigger the stay, but the absence of a Memorandum of Appeal meant that the stay would only subsist if an appeal was filed within 30 days. The court further ordered that the subject motor vehicle remain preserved in the custody of the Assets Recovery Agency, in line with statutory requirements, and that costs would abide the outcome of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution allowed, subject to conditions.

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the forfeiture order granted, pending appeal, provided that an appeal is filed within 30 days of the ruling; otherwise, the stay lapses.
  • The subject motor vehicle shall remain preserved in the custody of the Assets Recovery Agency as per Section 97 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act.