https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6874

Atika v Odhiambo & 5 others (Constitutional Petition E189 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 6874 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (13 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6874 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Constitutional and Human Rights Constitutional Petition E189 of 2022 B Mwamuye, J May 13, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 21(1), 22(1)(2) AND 23(1)(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA, 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF THE RIGHTS AND/OR FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLES 27(1)(2), 29, 31(B), 39(1), 40(1), AND 47(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA, 2010 Between Irene Moraa Atika Petitioner and Aloice Oduor Odhiambo 1st Respondent The Inspector General Of Police 2nd Respondent The Hon. Attorney General 3rd Respondent The National Transport And Safety Authority 4th Respondent Africa 2000 Network Kenya 5th Respondent and The Director Of Public Prosecutions Interested Party Judgment Introduction 1.The Petitioner herein, Irene Moraa Atika, approached this Court by way of a Petition dated 13th April 2022, which was subsequently amended on 12th November 2024. The Amended Petition alleges contravention of various fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, arising from a protracted dispute with the 1st Respondent, Aloice Oduor Odhiambo, over the ownership and control of two motor vehicles, namely KAW 567C, Toyota Hiace, and KBW 649W, Toyota Hilux Double Cabin, as well as the management of Africa 2000 Network Kenya, a Non-Governmental Organization, and Africa 2000 Network Educational Centre, a community-based school for underprivileged children. 2.The Petitioner contends that the 1st Respondent, who was formerly her driver and later appointed as Treasurer of the NGO, took advantage of her absence when she relocated to Kisii County to supervise a project, and proceeded to cause chaos within the organization. The Petitioner further alleges that the 1st Respondent colluded with officers from various police stations, namely Nyakoe Police Station, Nyanchwa Police Station in Kisii, and Githurai 45 Kimbo Police Station in Nairobi, to unlawfully impound the two motor vehicles, harass and intimidate her, subject her to repeated arbitrary arrests without being charged, and ultimately deprive her of her property. The Petitioner also impleads the 4th Respondent, the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA), for allegedly colluding with the 1st Respondent to fraudulently transfer ownership of motor vehicle KAW 567C from her name to the 5th Respondent, Africa 2000 Network Kenya, in flagrant disregard of interim orders issued by this Court. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents, the Inspector General of Police and the Honourable Attorney General, are sued as the state organs responsible for the actions of the police officers. The Director of Public Prosecutions was subsequently joined as an Interested Party upon an application by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents. 3.The 1st Respondent filed a Reply to Petition on 6th June 2023, essentially denying the Petitioner’s claims and asserting that the Petitioner was a former employee of the NGO whose employment had been terminated on 17th January 2019. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by IP Daniel Karani on 19th June 2023 and another by CPL Gideon Koech on 19th June 2023, in addition to Grounds of Opposition dated 28th February 2025, challenging the competence of the Amended Petition and contending that no constitutional issues had been raised. The 4th Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by Collins Kieng, the Manager Registration, on 4th February 2025, together with written submissions dated 13th February 2025, essentially stating that it acted within its statutory mandate in effecting the transfers of the subject motor vehicles based on documents presented by applicants on its online platform. The 5th Respondent did not file any response to the Amended Petition. The Interested Party filed Grounds of Opposition dated 17th February 2025 challenging its joinder to the proceedings. Background 4.The background facts as discerned from the pleadings and affidavits are as follows. The Petitioner, Irene Moraa Atika, is the founder of Africa 2000 Network Educational Centre, a school for underprivileged children, and was at all material times the Director and Secretary of the 5th Respondent, Africa 2000 Network Kenya, a Non-Governmental Organization registered with the NGOs Coordination Board on 22nd March 2007 under Certificate No. OP.218/051/2006/0130/4462. The initial officials of the NGO were listed as Salver Begum Khan (Chairperson), Irene Moraa Atika (Secretary), and Aloice Oduor Odhiambo (Treasurer), as evidenced by a letter from the NGOs Coordination Board marked as annexture “IMA1” to the Petitioner’s Supporting Affidavit. 5.The Petitioner avers that she single-handedly established the school from scratch, initially housing it in a friend’s house before taking a loan to rent premises in Githurai where the school is currently situated. In July 2013, Miva Donors visited the school and donated USD 25,000 for the purchase of a means of transport, as evidenced by a letter dated 12th September 2013 from Johanna Voegeli of miva Switzerland (annexure “IMA4”). Since the school was not yet registered by the Ministry of Education, the funds were channeled through the NGO, and Motor Vehicle Registration Number KBW 649W, a Toyota Hilux Double Cabin, was purchased and registered in the name of Africa 2000 Network Kenya, with the understanding that the transfer would be effected to the school upon its registration. The Petitioner also avers that she was the sole proprietor of Motor Vehicle Registration Number KAW 567C, a Toyota Hiace, which she initially used as a public service vehicle but later converted into a school van. The logbook for KAW 567C annexed as “IMA6” shows the Petitioner as the registered owner. 6.The Petitioner relocated to Kisii County to supervise the implementation of the Malaria Global Fund R10 Project awarded to the NGO. For convenience, the 1st Respondent, who had been hired as a driver, was appointed as Treasurer of the NGO to facilitate access to funds. The Petitioner contends that the 1st Respondent took advantage of her absence and began causing chaos within the organization, interfering with projects, conning donors, and interfering with employees. 7.The dispute escalated in November 2020 when the 1st Respondent, in the company of unnamed individuals, allegedly broke into the Petitioner’s residential home in Kisii, which had been subdivided to create office space for the NGO, and stole personal and work documents. This incident was reported at Nyakoe Police Station vide OB No. 4/11/11/2020. 8.Subsequently, in April 2021, the Petitioner was summoned to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) Nairobi Area regarding a change of officials at the NGO. At the DCI offices, the 1st Respondent purportedly presented documents indicating that the Petitioner had been removed as Secretary of the NGO, a fact she vehemently disputed. 9.On or about 24th November 2021, the 1st Respondent, accompanied by others, allegedly stormed the Petitioner’s parents’ home in Kisii and attempted to take motor vehicle KBW 649W. Police officers from Nyakoe Police Station intervened and directed both parties to present logbooks for the vehicle. The Petitioner presented the original logbook, while the 1st Respondent presented a duplicate logbook, which raised her suspicion. The vehicle was subsequently moved to Nyanchwa Police Station, ostensibly through collusion between the 1st Respondent and police officers. 10.On 27th November 2021, the 1st Respondent and his alleged accomplices again attacked the Petitioner’s parents’ home, vandalizing property and carting away furniture, household items, and the Petitioner’s personal documents. An inventory of the items taken and damaged, running into several pages, was annexed as “IMA9(b)”. The Petitioner also reported this incident to the police. 11.On 25th February 2022, police officers from Githurai 45 Kimbo Police Station, in the company of the 1st Respondent, arrested the Petitioner. She was held overnight and released upon payment of Kshs 10,000 cash bail, for which no receipt was issued. She was directed to report to Nyakoe and Nyanchwa Police Stations in Kisii, purportedly where she was wanted. Upon travelling to Kisii and reporting to the said stations, she was informed that no such request for her attendance had been made. 12.On 27th February and 28th February 2022, the Petitioner received threatening phone calls and a text message from a person identified as Mr. Karani, the Officer in Charge of Crime at Githurai 45 Kimbo Police Station, threatening her with arrest for refusing to hand over assets to the 1st Respondent. A screenshot of the text message was annexed as “IMA10”. 13.On 2nd March 2022, police officers from Githurai 45 Kimbo Police Station, accompanied by the 1st Respondent, attempted to search the Petitioner’s house in Githurai without a search warrant. Upon being denied access, they retaliated by towing motor vehicle KAW 567C to the police station and arresting the Petitioner. At the station, she was allegedly grilled, threatened, and intimidated to coerce her into handing over the vehicle and its logbook to the 1st Respondent. When she refused, the police informed her that she would be charged with the offence of stealing by a director contrary to Section 282 of the Penal Code. Despite being directed to report to the station for arraignment at Ruiru Law Courts, the Petitioner contends that no charges have ever been preferred against her to date. 14.Aggrieved by these events, the Petitioner filed the instant Petition on 13th April 2022, together with a Notice of Motion seeking interim relief. This Court granted interim orders on 10th May 2022 restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents from interfering with the motor vehicles and from arbitrarily arresting the Petitioner. On 13th June 2022, this Court issued further orders compelling the 2nd Respondent to release the two motor vehicles to the Petitioner pending the hearing and determination of the application. 15.Despite these orders, the vehicles were not released. On 23rd February 2023, this Court issued further orders directing the Officers Commanding Station at Nyanchwa Police Station and Kimbo Police Station to release motor vehicle KBW 649W and KAW 567C within 24 hours, and further directed summons to issue to the OCSs if they failed to comply. The Petitioner avers in the Amended Petition that despite these orders, the 1st Respondent colluded with officers of the 4th Respondent (NTSA) to illegally transfer motor vehicle KAW 567C from the Petitioner’s name to the 5th Respondent. The Petitioner discovered this illegal transfer in November 2023 when she attempted to book the vehicle for inspection. Correspondence between the Petitioner’s advocates and the 4th Respondent, annexed to the Petitioner’s Supplementary List of Documents, confirms that the 4th Respondent indeed transferred the vehicle based on a complaint and an affidavit sworn by the 1st Respondent. 16.As regards motor vehicle KBW 649W, the 4th Respondent’s records show a chain of transfers: from the 5th Respondent to the 1st Respondent on 7th October 2022, then to James Mwangi Irungu on 8th December 2022, then to Shivsurya Co. Limited on 29th March 2023, and finally to Amos Mungai Kaburu on 24th January 2025, who is the current registered owner according to the copy of records dated 3rd February 2025 annexed as “CK-21” to the 4th Respondent’s Replying Affidavit. 17.The 1st Respondent, in his reply to Petition filed on 6th June 2023, denied the Petitioner’s claims, asserting that the Petitioner’s employment with the NGO was terminated on 17th January 2019, that the motor vehicles belong to the NGO, and that the Petitioner has no claim over them. He further alleged that the Petitioner had frustrated the organization’s efforts, forged documents, and changed officials unlawfully. 18.The 2nd and 3rd Respondents, through their various filings, essentially argued that the police actions were based on investigations into a complaint of stealing by a director, that the motor vehicles were detained as exhibits pending investigations, and that the criminal process should be allowed to take its course. They further attacked the competence of the Amended Petition on grounds that it did not meet the precision threshold set in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] KLR 154. 19.The 4th Respondent maintained that it acted within its statutory mandate under the National Transport and Safety Authority Act, No. 33 of 2012, as the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, by processing transfer applications submitted online by applicants who logged into their accounts using one-time passwords sent to their registered phone numbers. It contended that it was a neutral party with no interest in the dispute and that it was wrongly enjoined. 20.The Interested Party, the Director of Public Prosecutions, filed Grounds of Opposition dated 17th February 2025 challenging its joinder, contending that it had no identifiable stake or legal interest in the proceedings and that no breach of rights had been attributed to it. 21.The 5th Respondent did not file any response. The Petitioner’s Case 22.The Petitioner’s case, as presented in the Amended Petition dated 12th November 2024, her supporting affidavit and the Written Submissions dated 10th November 2025, is that her fundamental rights and freedoms under Articles 27 (equality and freedom from discrimination), 29 (freedom and security of the person), 31 (privacy), 39 (freedom of movement), 40 (protection of right to property), and 47 (fair administrative action) of the Constitution have been violated by the Respondents collectively. 23.The Petitioner argued that the actions of the police officers of the 2nd Respondent, acting in cahoots with the 1st Respondent, were arbitrary, illegal, and an abuse of power. She highlights the fact that despite being arrested multiple times, no formal charges have ever been preferred against her, which demonstrates that the arrests were merely a tool for harassment and intimidation to force her to surrender her property to the 1st Respondent. She relies on the decision in Ronald Leposo Musengi v Director of Public Prosecutions & 3 others [2015] KEHC 6983 (KLR) for the proposition that the Constitution has provided extensive safeguards to accused persons, and that unless there is material upon which the court can find that the Petitioner is unlikely to receive a fair trial, the court ought not to interfere simply because the Petitioner may ultimately be found innocent. However, she argues that in her case, the lack of any charges despite the passage of over three years demonstrates that the criminal process was abused from its inception. 24.On the right to property under Article 40 of the Constitution, the Petitioner submitted that the impounding and continued detention of the motor vehicles, first by the police and subsequently through the fraudulent transfer orchestrated by the 1st Respondent and executed by the 4th Respondent, constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of property. She places reliance on Section 8 of the Traffic Act, which provides that the person in whose name a vehicle is registered shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be the owner. The Petitioner produced a logbook for KAW 567C in her name, the purchase agreement dated 11th March 2015, the transfer application from Peter Muturi Mwangi to herself, and receipts for payment of transfer fees. She argues that the 4th Respondent’s decision to reverse the transfer based merely on an affidavit sworn by the 1st Respondent without any proof of ownership or purchase by the 5th Respondent, and without notice to her, was not only irregular but also constituted a gross violation of her right to fair administrative action under Article 47 as read with the Fair Administrative Action Act. 25.The Petitioner further submitted that the transfer of KBW 649W was done in utter contempt of this Court’s orders dated 10th May 2022, 13th June 2022, and 23rd February 2023. She points to the audit trail provided by the 4th Respondent itself, which shows that the transfer from the 5th Respondent to the 1st Respondent occurred on 7th October 2022, while this Court had already issued orders restraining any interference with the vehicle. She argues that the 1st Respondent, having been served with the court orders as evidenced by the acknowledgment of service, acted in flagrant disobedience of this Court’s authority. 26.On the issue of the 1st Respondent’s response, the Petitioner contends that the 1st Respondent’s Reply to Petition is defective because it was not supported by a verifying affidavit or any evidentiary material. She argues that in constitutional petitions, the rules require that every fact pleaded be verified by an affidavit, and that mere allegations without evidence cannot suffice to discharge the evidential burden that shifts to a respondent once a prima facie case of violation is established. 27.The Petitioner prays for several reliefs, including a declaration that her constitutional rights have been violated, an order compelling the 2nd Respondent to release the motor vehicles (or in the alternative, payment of USD 25,000 as the value of KBW 649W), an order compelling the 4th Respondent to cancel the registration of the 5th Respondent over KAW 567C and re-register the Petitioner as the proprietor, a declaration that KBW 649W belongs to her trading as the Educational Centre, an order compelling the 1st Respondent to return her academic documents and other items listed in the inventory, permanent injunctions against harassment, arbitrary arrest, and interference with her property, as well as general and punitive damages and costs. 28.Further, the Petitioner urged the Court to apply the principle that where constitutional violations are proved, an award of damages is discretionary and should be guided by the principles in Sievchand Ramanoop v The AG of T&T, PC Appeal No 13 of 2004, where the Privy Council held that an award for constitutional violations may include an additional award to reflect the sense of public outrage, emphasize the importance of the constitutional right and the gravity of the breach, and deter future breaches. Further reliance was placed on the decision in Peter M. Kariuki v Attorney General [2014] eKLR on the assessment of damages for non-pecuniary loss. The Court was thus urged to allow the Amended Petition and grant the reliefs sought. The Respondents’ Case The 1St Respondent’s Case 29.The 1st Respondent, Aloice Oduor Odhiambo, acting in person, filed a reply to Petition dated 6th June 2023. He denies that the Petitioner is the Director and Secretary of Africa 2000 Network Kenya, asserting that her employment was terminated on 17th January 2019. He states that the Africa 2000 Network Educational Centre was established by the NGO, not the Petitioner personally. He claims that the motor vehicles belong to the NGO, and that the Petitioner has used forged documents to change officials and properties to her name. He prays that the Petition be dismissed with costs. SUBDIVISION - THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS’ CASE 30.The 2nd and 3rd Respondents, through the Office of the Attorney General, filed several documents: a Replying Affidavit by No. 236415 IP Daniel Karani sworn on 19th June 2023, a Replying Affidavit by No. 86780 CPL Gideon Koech sworn on 19th June 2023 and Grounds of Opposition dated 28th February 2025. 31.In his Replying Affidavit, IP Daniel Karani depones that he was investigating a case of stealing by a director contrary to Section 282 of the Penal Code, reported at Githurai Kimbo Police Station OB No. 31/13/12/2020. He states that the complainant, Aloice Oduor Odhiambo, alleged that the Petitioner stole motor vehicle KAW 567C. He admits that on 2nd March 2022, the complainant led police officers to the Petitioner’s residence, that the Petitioner declined to allow a search without a warrant, and that the vehicle was towed to the police station yard. He states that the Petitioner presented herself at the station on the same day, was interrogated, and was issued with a P52 form to be reporting as investigations progressed. He states that the Petitioner did not produce any document to prove ownership of the vehicle at that time, whereas the complainant produced an original logbook showing the owner as Africa 2000 Network (Kenya). He further deposes that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was consulted and it was deemed fit for other directors to appear for interrogation. Significantly, he admits that the inquiry file No. 6/2022 at ODPP Ruiru is still in progress, and that despite the court orders issued on 23rd February 2023 directing the release of the two motor vehicles, the motor vehicle KAW 567C was released to the Petitioner in compliance with the court order. 32.In his Replying Affidavit, CPL Gideon Koech depones that he was assigned to investigate a case of misuse of property of Africa 2000 Network Kenya, particularly motor vehicle KBW 649W. He wrote to the NGOs Coordination Board on 8th December 2021 inquiring about the bona fide officials of the NGO. He annexes a response dated 15th December 2021 from the NGOs Coordination Board indicating that the bona fide officials are Salver Begun Khan (Chairperson), Paul Ayier Kiage (Secretary), and Aloice Oduor Odhiambo (Treasurer). The response does not list the Petitioner as an official. He also conducted an official search at NTSA which revealed that the vehicle was registered in the name of Africa 2000 Network (Kenya). He states that the vehicle was handed over to the treasurer, the 1st Respondent herein, upon recommendations of the ODPP, and that this was done with the full knowledge of the Petitioner, who did not object. 33.In their Grounds of Opposition dated 28th February 2025, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents contend that the Amended Petition does not meet the threshold for precision in drafting a constitutional petition as elucidated in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (supra) and reiterated in Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance, Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2012. They argue that the Petitioner has failed to specifically demonstrate with reasonable precision how the 2nd and 3rd Respondents have violated the cited constitutional provisions. They further argue that the Petitioner has misapprehended the import of a constitutional petition and that the matter is essentially a civil dispute over ownership of property that ought to have been pursued in a civil suit. They contend that the Amended Petition is vague and does not raise issues for constitutional interpretation. They therefore urged the Court to dismiss the Amended Petition with costs. The 4Th Respondent’s Case 34.The 4th Respondent, the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA), filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by Collins Kieng, the Manager Registration, on 4th February 2025, together with written submissions dated 13th February 2025. The 4th Respondent admits that it is the Registrar of Motor Vehicles and custodian of all motor vehicle records in Kenya. It provides a detailed account of the ownership history of the two motor vehicles based on its Transport Integrated Management System (TIMS). 35.For motor vehicle KAW 567C, the 4th Respondent averred that it was originally registered in the name of Muturi Peter Mwangi, who initiated a transfer to the Petitioner on 28th September 2020, and upon verification of necessary attachments, the Authority approved the transfer and issued a logbook in the name of Irene Moraa Atika, the Petitioner. On 6th April 2022, the 4th Respondent received a request from the 1st Respondent for reversal of the vehicle to the 5th Respondent, supported by an affidavit sworn by the 1st Respondent, letters from the NGOs Coordination Board, and a logbook in the name of Muturi Peter Mwangi. Consequently, the 4th Respondent reversed the ownership to the 5th Respondent and placed a caveat on the vehicle pending investigations or prosecution. The 4th Respondent maintains that it acted lawfully within its mandate and that the applications were initiated online through the applicants’ accounts which are solely operated by them. 36.For motor vehicle KBW 649W, the 4th Respondent states that the original registered owner was Africa 2000 Network (Kenya), the 5th Respondent, from 25th October 2013. On 7th October 2022, the vehicle was transferred to the 1st Respondent. On 8th December 2022, it was transferred to James Mwangi Irungu. On 29th March 2023, it was transferred to Shivsurya Co. Limited. On 24th January 2025, it was transferred to Amos Mungai Kaburu, who is the current registered owner. The 4th Respondent averred that it has not placed a caveat on this vehicle because it has not received any complaint regarding fraudulent transfer. It further states that the court orders of 10th May 2022, 13th June 2022, and 23rd February 2023 were directed at the 1st and 2nd Respondents and did not curtail the 4th Respondent from effecting legal transfers. It contends that it is a neutral party and should not have been enjoined. 37.The 4th Respondent relied on the principle in Anarita Karimi Njeru (supra) and Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others (supra) to argue that the Petition does not meet the required threshold. It also relies on the doctrine of privity of contract, citing several authorities including George Muriaini Muhoro t/a A.M Muhoro Advocates v George Ndungu Kamiti (Civil Appeal No. 233 of 2003) and Midlands Gem Limited & Another v Airspace Forwarders Limited & Another (Civil Appeal No. 922 of 2003) to argue that the Petitioner cannot sue the 4th Respondent for breach of contract or any arrangement to which it was not a party. Further reliance was placed in Advanced Gaming Limited v Betting Control and Licensing Board & 2 Others; Safaricom Limited (Interested Party) [2019] eKLR for the proposition that once a court fails to sniff any illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in a statutory body’s actions, it should down its tools. The 4th Respondent also relies on Kenya National Examinations Council v Republic ex-parte Geoffrey Githinji Njoroge & 9 Others [1997] eKLR on the nature of orders of prohibition, arguing that prohibition looks to the future and cannot quash a decision already made. 38.Consequently, the Court was urged to dismiss the Petition with costs. The Interested Party’s Case 39.The Director of Public Prosecutions filed Grounds of Opposition dated 17th February 2025, contending that no evidence has been advanced to demonstrate that the DPP has an identifiable stake or legal interest in the proceedings, that the Petitioner has cited a relief against the DPP without any factual basis, that the Petitioner has not set out breaches of fundamental rights by the Interested Party with reasonable precision, that the Interested Party is not a necessary party, and that the application and Petition should be dismissed with costs. The Interested Party did not file any substantive response on the merits of the violations of the rights alleged. Analysis And Determination 40.Having considered the pleadings, affidavits, submissions, and the various grounds of opposition, this Court is of the view that the following issues arise for determination:i.Whether the Amended Petition meets the constitutional threshold for precision in pleading.ii.Whether the Petitioner’s Constitutional rights have been violated by the Respondents or any of them.iii.Whether the 1st Respondent’s Reply to Petition, being unsupported by a verifying affidavit or any documentary evidence, carries any evidential weight.iv.Whether the 4th Respondent (NTSA) acted within its statutory mandate in effecting the transfers of the motor vehicles or whether its actions constituted an arbitrary deprivation of property and a violation of fair administrative action.v.Whether the continued detention of the motor vehicles and the failure to prefer charges against the Petitioner amounts to an abuse of the criminal justice process and a violation of her rights.vi.Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought. Whether the Amended Petition meets the constitutional threshold for precision in pleading 41.This Court must first address the threshold objection raised by the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents to the effect that the Amended Petition does not meet the standard of precision required for constitutional petitions. The locus classicus on this issue is the decision in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (supra), where the court held that a party alleging a violation of a constitutional right must set out with reasonable precision the Article violated, the manner of violation, and the basis for the claim. This principle was reaffirmed in Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others (supra), where the court stated that cases cannot be dealt with justly unless the parties and the court know the issues in controversy, and that pleadings assist in that regard by giving fair notice to the other party. 42.The 2nd and 3rd Respondents argue that the Petitioner has failed to specifically demonstrate how each of the cited Articles has been violated and that the matter essentially is a civil dispute over ownership of property and not a constitutional issue. This Court has carefully examined the Amended Petition dated 12th November 2024. The Petitioner has set out in paragraphs 1 to 58 a detailed narrative of events, specifying the dates, locations, and actors involved in the alleged violations. She has then, in the prayers, identified the specific Articles of the Constitution that she contends have been violated, namely Articles 21(1), 27(1) and (2), 29, 31(b), 39(1), 40(1), and 47(1). She has further elaborated on how each of these Articles has been infringed: Article 27 (equality and equal protection) by the police treating her differently from the 1st Respondent; Article 29 (freedom and security of the person) by the unlawful arrests, detention, and harassment; Article 31(b) (privacy) by the search of her house without a warrant; Article 39 (freedom of movement) by requiring her to report to police stations and curtailing her travel; Article 40 (right to property) by the impounding and illegal transfer of her vehicles; and Article 47 (fair administrative action) by the arbitrary actions of the NTSA in effecting the transfer without notice or a hearing. 43.This Court is not persuaded by the Respondents’ objections. The threshold in Anarita Karimi Njeru (supra) is not meant to be a technical bar but a guide to ensure that respondents are not ambushed by vague allegations. As the Court of Appeal itself stated in Mumo Matemu (supra), the principle is an extension of the broader principle of pleading that gives fair notice to the other party. In the present case, the Respondents cannot honestly claim to have been ambushed. The 1st Respondent has filed a detailed reply, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents have filed replying affidavits and grounds of opposition, and the 4th Respondent has filed a comprehensive replying affidavit. The fact that the Respondents have been able to respond meaningfully to the Petition demonstrates that it meets the threshold of reasonable precision. Moreover, this Court has previously held in numerous decisions that where a constitutional petition raises issues that concurrently involve violations of constitutional rights intertwined with civil claims, the court should not strike out the petition simply because a civil remedy might also be available. The proper approach is to determine whether the core of the dispute involves the interpretation and enforcement of constitutional rights. In this case, the Petitioner is not merely seeking to recover property; she is complaining that the police, an organ of the State, acting in concert with a private individual, have used the machinery of criminal investigation to arbitrarily deprive her of her property, subject her to repeated arrests without charge, and violate her dignity and security. These are quintessentially constitutional issues. 44.Accordingly, this Court finds that the Amended Petition meets the requisite threshold and is properly before this Court. Whether the Petitioner’s Constitutional rights have been violated by the Respondents or any of them. 45.This is the core issue for determination. The Court will analyze each of the alleged violations in the context of the facts as presented in the affidavits and supported by the documentary evidence. 46.On the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law under Article 27(1) and (2), the Petitioner contends that the police treated her differently from the 1st Respondent. The evidence on record shows that the 1st Respondent was the complainant who alleged stealing by a director. He appeared at the DCI offices armed with documents and actively participated in the investigations. He accompanied police officers during the arrest of the Petitioner on 25th February 2022 and during the attempted search and towing of the vehicle on 2nd March 2022. 47.Meanwhile, the Petitioner was arrested, detained overnight, required to post cash bail for which no receipt was issued, and subjected to repeated threats and intimidation. The police did not, based on the evidence before this Court, take any adverse action against the 1st Respondent for his alleged role in breaking into the Petitioner’s home on two occasions, stealing documents, vandalizing property, or carting away furniture and household goods as detailed in the inventory annexed as “IMA9(b)”. The OB report at Nyakoe Police Station for the incident of November 2020 (annexure “IMA7”) and the incidents of 24th and 27th November 2021 (annexure “IMA8” and “IMA9(a)”) were apparently not acted upon by the police to charge the 1st Respondent. This disparity in treatment, where the complainant is treated as a collaborator with the police and the suspect is treated as a target of harassment, while the complainant’s own acts of breaking and entering and theft are ignored, prima facie demonstrates unequal treatment. 48.In the case of David Ndolo Ngiali & 2 others V Directorate of Criminal Investigations & 4 others (2015) eKLR wherein the Honourable Court favourably cited the case of Erick Kibiwott & 2 others Vs. DPP & 2 Others Judicial Review Civil Application No.89 of 2010, the Honourable Judge observed that:“The Police have a duty to investigate on any complaint once a complaint is made. Indeed the Police would be failing in their constitutional mandate to detect and prevent crime. The Police only need to establish reasonable suspicion before preferring charges. The rest is left to the trial court…as long as the prosecution and those charged with the responsibility of making decisions to charge act in a reasonable manner, the high court would be reluctant to intervene.” 49.In Commissioner of Police & Director of Criminal Investigation Department & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 4 others [2013] KECA 182 (KLR), the Court made it clear that if it comes to the attention of the court that there has been a serious abuse of power, it should express its disapproval and stop it. In holding the view, the Court stated as follows;“By the same token and in terms of Article 157 (11) of the Constitution, quoted above, in exercising powers donated by the law, including the power to direct the Inspector General to investigate an allegation of criminal conduct, the DPP is enjoined, among other considerations, to have regard to the need to prevent and avoid abuse of the legal process. The court on the other hand is required to oversee that the DPP and the Inspector General undertake these functions in accordance and compliance with the law. If it comes to the attention of the court that there has been a serious abuse of power, it should, in our view, express its disapproval by stopping it, in order to secure the ends of justice, and restrain above of power that may lead to harassment or persecution. See Githunguri V. Republic [1985] LLR 3090” 50.The police’s duty to investigate is not a discretion to be exercised arbitrarily or maliciously. The police have a duty to investigate all complaints impartially and that targeting one party while ignoring the criminal conduct of the other violates the right to equal protection. This Court finds that the Petitioner has established a violation of her right to equal protection of the law under Article 27. 51.On the right to freedom and security of the person under Article 29, the Petitioner complains of repeated arbitrary arrests, detention, and threats. The evidence shows that she was arrested on 25th February 2022 and held overnight, arrested again on 2nd March 2022, and threatened with arrest through phone calls and a text message from the OC Crime at Githurai 45 Kimbo Police Station. Article 29(a) protects every person from being deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause. Article 29(c) protects from any form of violence from public or private sources. Article 29(d) protects from torture in any manner, whether physical or psychological. In the case of Alfred N. Mutua v Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) & 4 others [2016] KECA 596 (KLR), the court held that the right to personal liberty is the most fundamental of all rights, and any deprivation must be strictly in accordance with the law. In making the determination, the court of Appeal held as follows;“.... In further consideration of public interest in relation to the conservatory orders sought, we have evaluated the instant application in light of the submission that there is a real threat of arrest and prosecution of the applicant and that this is a threatened violation of his dignity and fundamental rights under the Constitution. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the arrested individual but for his family, close relations and friends particularly as most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre-conviction or post-conviction stage. In our view, arrest should be the last option and should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting an individual is imperative in the facts and circumstances of the case. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The importance of personal liberty as a fundamental right cannot be gainsaid; all other fundamental rights and freedoms cannot be enjoyed without life and liberty. Life bereft of liberty is without honour and dignity and loses significance and meaning and life itself would not be worth living; that is why liberty is the very quintessence of a civilized existence.” 52.The Petitioner was arrested on 2nd March 2022 ostensibly for the offence of stealing by a director. The police had the power to arrest under Section 29 of the Criminal Procedure Code if they had reasonable suspicion. However, the Petitioner contends that no charges have ever been preferred against her to date. This Court has perused the Replying Affidavit of IP Daniel Karani, who deposes that the inquiry file No. 6/2022 at ODPP Ruiru is still in progress. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that over three years have passed since the arrest, yet no charges have been preferred. In Republic v Director of Public Prosecutions & Another Ex-parte Chamanlal Vrajlal Kamani & 2 others [2015] eKLR the court underscored that the police and the DPP have a duty to make a decision on whether to charge a suspect within a reasonable time, and that keeping a suspect in a state of uncertainty indefinitely amounts to an abuse of the legal process and a violation of the right to a fair trial. The repeated reporting requirements, the threats of arrest, and the indefinite pendency of the inquiry file constitute a form of psychological torture and harassment that violates Article 29. This Court further notes that the attempted search of the Petitioner’s house on 2nd March 2022 without a search warrant violated her right to privacy under Article 31(b). The police admitted that the Petitioner denied them access because they did not have a search warrant, and that they retaliated by towing the vehicle. Section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires a court to issue a search warrant upon application by a police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that something connected with an offence is in a particular place. The police did not obtain a warrant, and their action therefore was unlawful. Accordingly, this Court finds violations of Articles 29 and 31(b). 53.On the right to freedom of movement under Article 39(1), the Petitioner contends that the police required her to report to various police stations on pain of arrest, which curtailed her ability to travel freely. The evidence shows that upon release on 25th February 2022, she was directed to report to Nyakoe and Nyanchwa Police Stations in Kisii. She travelled to Kisii, only to be told that no one had requested her attendance. She was also required to report to Githurai 45 Kimbo Police Station periodically as investigations continued. While it is permissible for the police to require a suspect to report as a condition of bail pending completion of investigations, the indefinite nature of this requirement, coupled with the failure to finalize the investigations and the threats of arrest, had the effect of restricting her freedom of movement. The Court in the case of Ng’etich & 2 others v Attorney General & 3 others [2016] KEHC 8207 (KLR), while considering the right to freedom of movement, noted that any restriction must be by law, be necessary in a democratic society, and be proportionate. The restrictions imposed on the Petitioner, in the absence of any formal charges being preferred after three years, are no longer proportionate or necessary. This Court finds a violation of Article 39(1). 54.On the right to property under Article 40(1) and (2), the Petitioner claims that the impounding and detention of the motor vehicles KAW 567C and KBW 649W, and the subsequent fraudulent transfer of KAW 567C, constitute an arbitrary deprivation of property. Article 40(2)(a) specifically prohibits the State or any person from arbitrarily depriving a person of property of any description. The evidence on ownership is critical. For motor vehicle KAW 567C, the Petitioner produced the logbook in her name (annexure “IMA6”), the sale agreement dated 11th March 2015 between herself and Wilson Ndungu Njoroge (annexed to the Supplementary List of Documents), the transfer application from Peter Muturi Mwangi to the Petitioner (annexure to the Supplementary List of Documents), and receipts for payment of transfer fees. 55.The 4th Respondent itself admitted in its Replying Affidavit that the vehicle was registered in the Petitioner’s name after a lawful transfer from Muturi Peter Mwangi. The fact that the 1st Respondent later produced an affidavit and letters to the 4th Respondent claiming that the vehicle belonged to the 5th Respondent did not, without more, nullify the Petitioner’s title. The 1st Respondent did not produce any document showing that the 5th Respondent ever purchased the vehicle from the Petitioner or from any previous owner. The 4th Respondent appears to have acted solely on the basis of an affidavit and letters from the NGOs Coordination Board. This Court is of the considered view that a mere affidavit, without a court order or a determination by a competent tribunal that the initial transfer was fraudulent, cannot be a sufficient basis for the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to reverse a registered transfer. 56.The procedure adopted by the 4th Respondent effectively allowed a private individual to unilaterally challenge and reverse a registration without notice to the registered owner and without any judicial or quasi-judicial determination. This is the epitome of arbitrary action. As it was held in the case of South East Development Co. Ltd v Registrar of Titles & another [2021] KEELC 3589 (KLR), the right to property is not absolute, but any deprivation must be in accordance with the law, which connotes a law that is fair, just, and not arbitrary. The law under which the 4th Respondent operates, the National Transport and Safety Authority Act and the Traffic Act, does not confer upon the Registrar the power to reverse a registration based merely on a complaint and an affidavit without giving the registered owner an opportunity to be heard. The Fair Administrative Action Act, Section 4, requires that before any administrative action that is likely to adversely affect the rights of a person is taken, that person be given prior and adequate notice, an opportunity to be heard, and reasons for the decision. None of these were accorded to the Petitioner. The transfer of KAW 567C from the Petitioner to the 5th Respondent was therefore illegal, null, and void, and a gross violation of the Petitioner’s right to property under Article 40 and her right to fair administrative action under Article 47. 57.With respect to motor vehicle KBW 649W, the ownership history is more complex. The Petitioner claims that she is the beneficial owner because the vehicle was purchased with donor funds for the school, but was registered in the name of the 5th Respondent because the school was not yet registered by the Ministry of Education. She produced the letter from miva Switzerland dated 25th September 2013 (annexure “IMA4”) showing that the donor transferred USD 25,000 to an account of Africa 2000 Network Kenya for the purchase of a means of transport for the school. The logbook (annexure “IMA5”) shows the registered owner as Africa 2000 Network (Kenya). The Petitioner admits that the vehicle was never formally transferred to the school because the school was not registered. However, she argues that the 5th Respondent held the vehicle in trust for the school, which she founded and runs. The 4th Respondent’s records show that on 7th October 2022, the vehicle was transferred from the 5th Respondent to the 1st Respondent. This transfer occurred after the Petitioner had filed this Petition and after this Court had issued interim orders on 10th May 2022 and 13th June 2022 restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents from interfering with the vehicle. The 1st Respondent, in his capacity as treasurer of the 5th Respondent, apparently initiated this transfer. The 4th Respondent, in its Replying Affidavit, did not provide the supporting documents that were used to effect this transfer, stating only that the vehicle was owned by Africa 2000 Network Kenya until 7th October 2022 when there was a subsequent application of transfer to the 1st Respondent. 58.The 1st Respondent, as an individual, could not lawfully transfer a vehicle that was registered in the name of an NGO to himself without evidence that the NGO had authorized the transfer, for example, through a board resolution. No such resolution was provided. Moreover, this transfer was in direct defiance of this Court’s orders. The principle that a court order must be obeyed until set aside is fundamental to the rule of law. In the case of Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited [2015] eKLR, the Court of Appeal held that it is a grave misconduct for any party to disobey a court order once it has been duly served. In arriving at the decision, the Court had the following to say;“We reiterate here that Court orders must be obeyed. Parties to whom such orders are made cannot be allowed to trash them with impunity. Obedience of Court orders is not optional, rather it is mandatory and a person does not choose whether to obey a court order or not. For as Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States of America once said “no man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we seek any man’s permission to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not as a favour” 59.The 1st Respondent, having been served with the court orders as evidenced by the acknowledgment of service in the court file, chose to disregard them and proceeded to transfer the vehicle to himself, and thereafter to third parties. The subsequent transfers to James Mwangi Irungu, Shivsurya Co. Limited, and Amos Mungai Kaburu were all derivative of the initial illegal transfer. This Court finds that the transfer of KBW 649W to the 1st Respondent was a violation of the Petitioner’s rights, not because the Petitioner was the registered owner, but because as the founder and operator of the school for which the vehicle was donated, she had a legitimate expectation that the vehicle would be used for the school’s benefit. The 1st Respondent’s actions in transferring the vehicle to himself and subsequently selling it to third parties amounted to a breach of trust and a conversion of property that was held for a charitable purpose. 60.In the absence of any evidence from the 5th Respondent or the 1st Respondent that the NGO formally resolved to transfer the vehicle to the 1st Respondent personally, and given that the interim orders of this Court were flagrantly disobeyed, this Court finds a violation of the Petitioner’s right to property to the extent that the school, which depends on that vehicle to transport children, has been deprived of its use. However, because the vehicle has now passed into the hands of a third party, Amos Mungai Kaburu, who may be an innocent purchaser for value without notice of the dispute, the remedy of specific recovery may no longer be available. Whether the 1st Respondent’s Reply to Petition, being unsupported by any documentary evidence, carries any evidential weight. 61.The 1st Respondent filed a Reply to Petition dated 6th June 2023. The document is not supported by any documentary evidence. Under Rule 15 (2) of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013 (the Mutunga Rules), a respondent who wishes to oppose a petition must file a response, which shall consist of a replying affidavit, and may also include a statement of grounds relied upon to oppose the Petition. The rule contemplates that the facts relied upon by a respondent must be verified by an affidavit. The 1st Respondent chose not to swear any affidavit. The 1st Respondent’s Reply, therefore, carries no evidential weight. The Court will treat it as a statement of his position, but in the absence of any evidence to counter the Petitioner’s detailed account supported by documentary evidence (including OB reports, letters from the NGOs Coordination Board, email correspondence, and the donor letter), the Court will prefer the Petitioner’s evidence. The failure of the 1st Respondent to produce the minutes of the meeting that allegedly removed the Petitioner as Secretary, the letter terminating her employment, the resolution authorizing the transfer of the motor vehicles, or any document demonstrating his authority to act on behalf of the 5th Respondent, leaves his claims unsubstantiated. Whether the 4th Respondent (NTSA) acted within its statutory mandate in effecting the transfers of the motor vehicles or whether its actions constituted an arbitrary deprivation of property and a violation of fair administrative action. 62.This issue is crucial. The 4th Respondent is a public body established under the National Transport and Safety Authority Act, No. 33 of 2012. One of its core functions is the registration of motor vehicles and the maintenance of a register. Section 5 of the Traffic Act (Cap 403) provides that an application for registration of a motor vehicle shall be made to the Registrar, and upon verification of the documents, the Registrar shall register the vehicle in the name of the applicant. Section 9 of the Traffic Act provides for the transfer of ownership. The process, as the 4th Respondent itself admits, is now conducted online through the Transport Integrated Management System (TIMS). Users create accounts and initiate transfers by uploading documents. The system generates a one-time password (OTP) sent to the user’s registered phone number to authenticate the transaction. 63.In the case of motor vehicle KAW 567C, the 4th Respondent reversed a valid registration of the Petitioner based on a complaint from the 1st Respondent, supported by an affidavit sworn by the 1st Respondent, letters from the NGOs Coordination Board, and a logbook in the name of Muturi Peter Mwangi. However, the 4th Respondent did not provide any evidence that it gave the Petitioner notice of the complaint or an opportunity to be heard before reversing the registration. The Fair Administrative Action Act, Section 4(3), provides that where an administrative action is likely to adversely affect the rights of a person, the administrative body shall give the person prior and adequate notice of the nature and reasons for the proposed action, an opportunity to be heard, and a notice of the right to appeal. The Court of Appeal in the case of Judicial Service Commission v Mbalu Mutava & another [2015] KECA 741 (KLR) underscored that Article 47 of the Constitution imposes a duty on public bodies to act fairly and reasonably, and that any administrative action that is taken without according the affected party a hearing is null and void. The 4th Respondent’s action in reversing the registration of KAW 567C from the Petitioner to the 5th Respondent without notice to the Petitioner was therefore a violation of Article 47. The fact that the 4th Respondent may have acted on a complaint does not absolve it of the duty to hear both sides. As the Court held in the case of Republic v Attorney General; Law Society of Kenya - Nairobi Branch (Ex parte); Law Society of Kenya (Interested Party) [2023] KEHC 27503 (KLR), the right to fair administrative action is a fundamental right that requires every administrative body to act within the law, to act rationally, and to accord procedural fairness. The 4th Respondent failed in this duty. 64.Furthermore, the 4th Respondent’s reliance on the doctrine of privity of contract to argue that it should not have been sued is misplaced. The Petitioner is not suing the 4th Respondent for breach of contract; she is suing it for violation of constitutional rights. The doctrine of privity of contract has no application in constitutional litigation where a public body is alleged to have acted arbitrarily and in violation of the Bill of Rights. In any event, the Court is not being asked to enforce a contract between the Petitioner and the 4th Respondent; it is being asked to declare that the 4th Respondent’s administrative action was unfair and to order the cancellation of an illegal transfer and re-registration of the vehicle in the Petitioner’s name. The 4th Respondent’s reliance on cases such as George Muriaini Muhoro v George Ndungu Kamiti (supra) and Midlands Gem Limited v Airspace Forwarders Limited (supra) is therefore irrelevant. 65.This Court is also mindful of the decision in Advanced Gaming Limited v Betting Control and Licensing Board & 2 Others (supra), cited by the 4th Respondent, for the proposition that once a court fails to sniff any illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety, it should down its tools. However, in this case, the Court has sniffed illegality and procedural impropriety in abundance. The 4th Respondent’s action of reversing the registration based solely on an affidavit without notice to the registered owner was procedurally improper. The failure to provide any evidence of authorization by the 5th Respondent for the transfer of KBW 649W to the 1st Respondent was also a lapse. The 4th Respondent cannot hide behind the technicality of the TIMS system and the OTP to disclaim responsibility for the accuracy and legality of the transfers it effects. As the Registrar, it has a duty to ensure that transfers are lawful and that the documents presented are authentic and sufficient. The 4th Respondent should have demanded more than a bare affidavit from the 1st Respondent; it should have required a court order or a determination from a competent tribunal that the Petitioner’s registration was fraudulent. By failing to do so, it facilitated the 1st Respondent’s scheme to dispossess the Petitioner of her property. 66.However, this Court also notes that the 4th Respondent is not the primary wrongdoer. The primary wrongdoer is the 1st Respondent, who orchestrated the illegal transfers, and to some extent the police officers who facilitated the impounding of the vehicles. The 4th Respondent’s role was to process applications, but it did so without the requisite care and without observing the rules of natural justice. Therefore, while this Court will grant orders against the 4th Respondent to cancel the registration of the 5th Respondent over KAW 567C and to re-register the Petitioner, the Court will not award damages against the 4th Respondent, as its actions, though flawed, were not malicious. Whether the continued detention of the motor vehicles and the failure to prefer charges against the Petitioner amounts to an abuse of the criminal justice process and a violation of her rights. 67.The evidence shows that the Petitioner was arrested on 2nd March 2022 and informed that she would be charged with stealing by a director. The police opened inquiry file No. 6/2022 at ODPP Ruiru. As of the date of this judgment, over three years later, no charges have been preferred. The vehicle KAW 567C was released to the Petitioner pursuant to this Court’s order of 23rd February 2023, as admitted by IP Daniel Karani in his replying affidavit. However, the vehicle KBW 649W remains in the hands of third parties. The fact that no charges have been preferred in three years is troubling. The police and the DPP have a duty to investigate and make a decision on whether to charge a suspect within a reasonable time. What constitutes a reasonable time depends on the circumstances, but three years without a decision, especially where the suspect has been arrested and subjected to bail conditions, is manifestly unreasonable. 68.The indefinite pendency of an inquiry file keeps the suspect in a state of anxiety and uncertainty, which is itself a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 50(2)(e), which guarantees the right to have the trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay. In the case of the Petitioner, she has been made to report to the police station periodically, has been threatened with arrest, and has had to live with the specter of criminal charges hanging over her head. This is an abuse of the criminal justice process. This Court finds that the failure of the 2nd Respondent and the Interested Party to either charge the Petitioner or close the inquiry file and release her unconditionally constitutes a violation of her right to a fair hearing under Article 50, as well as her right to freedom and security under Article 29. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought 69.Having found multiple violations of the Petitioner’s constitutional rights, this Court now considers the appropriate reliefs. Article 23(3) of the Constitution empowers this Court to grant appropriate relief, including a declaration of rights, an injunction, a conservatory order, an order for compensation, and an order for judicial review. The Mutunga Rules, Rule 23, further provide for the remedies that may be granted. 70.On the declaratory reliefs, this Court will issue a declaration that the 1st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent (through its officers), and the 4th Respondent have violated the Petitioner’s rights under Articles 27(1)(2), 29, 31(b), 39(1), 40(1), and 47(1). The declaration will serve to vindicate the Petitioner’s rights and to publicly affirm the constitutional violations. 71.On the order for release of the motor vehicles: the vehicle KAW 567C is currently registered in the name of the 5th Respondent with a caveat. The Petitioner is in possession of the vehicle, as she confirmed in her correspondence with the 4th Respondent. The appropriate order is to compel the 4th Respondent to cancel the registration of the 5th Respondent and to re-register the Petitioner as the proprietor, and to remove the caveat. This restores the status quo ante before the illegal transfer. The vehicle KBW 649W, however, has been transferred multiple times and is now registered in the name of Amos Mungai Kaburu, a third party who may not have been aware of this dispute. The Court cannot issue an order for recovery of the vehicle against a person who is not a party to this suit. The Petitioner’s alternative prayer for the 1st, 2nd, and 5th Respondents to jointly and severally pay USD 25,000 being the value of the vehicle is reasonable. The donor letter indicated that USD 25,000 was donated for the purchase of the vehicle. The 1st Respondent, as the primary wrongdoer who transferred the vehicle to himself and subsequently to third parties, should bear primary liability for this amount. The 5th Respondent, as the entity that held the vehicle in trust for the school and whose treasurer (the 1st Respondent) acted without apparent authority, is also liable. The 2nd Respondent, through its officers, facilitated the impounding of the vehicle and allowed it to be released to the 1st Respondent in violation of court orders. The evidence shows that the vehicle was handed over to the 1st Respondent by the police upon recommendations of the ODPP. The police therefore bear some responsibility for the loss. Accordingly, this Court will order the 1st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent, and the 5th Respondent to jointly and severally pay the Petitioner USD 25,000 (or its equivalent in Kenyan Shillings at the prevailing exchange rate at the time of payment) as compensation for the loss of motor vehicle KBW 649W. 72.On the order compelling the 1st Respondent to return the Petitioner’s academic documents and other items listed in the inventory. The inventory annexed as “IMA9(b)” lists numerous items, including original academic certificates and professional certificates, office equipment, computers, furniture, a photocopier, a projector, cameras, kitchen items, and other assorted goods. The Petitioner avers that these were taken by the 1st Respondent during the break-ins in November 2020 and November 2021. The 1st Respondent has not denied these allegations in any sworn evidence. The Court finds that the 1st Respondent is in unlawful possession of these items. This Court will issue an order compelling the 1st Respondent to return all the items listed in the inventory within 45 days. In default, the Petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for orders of committal or for an assessment of the value of the items and a decree for that amount. 73.On the permanent injunctions. The evidence shows a pattern of harassment, arbitrary arrest, and interference with property. The 1st Respondent has vowed, in the Petitioner’s unchallenged deposition, to stop at nothing to see her suffer. The police have demonstrated a willingness to act at the behest of the 1st Respondent. In these circumstances, a permanent injunction is necessary to protect the Petitioner from future violations. This Court will issue a permanent injunction restraining the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent (or their officers) from harassing, threatening, intimidating, assaulting, distressing, annoying, or otherwise interfering with the Petitioner’s rights and fundamental freedoms and those of her family. Additionally, the Court will issue a permanent injunction restraining the 2nd Respondent from arresting the Petitioner arbitrarily or detaining her without following due process. However, the Court will add a proviso that if the 2nd Respondent and the Interested Party decide to charge the Petitioner based on credible and admissible evidence, they may do so in a court of law, but they shall not use the threat of criminal proceedings as a tool for harassment. 74.On the permanent injunction restraining the Respondents from operating or interfering with the motor vehicles. Given that KAW 567C is being restored to the Petitioner, an injunction against interference is appropriate. With respect to KBW 649W, since the Court has ordered compensation, an injunction would be redundant. Conclusion 75.For the reasons set out in this judgment, this Court finds that the Amended Petition dated 12th November 2024 has merit. The Petitioner has established that the 1st Respondent, acting in concert with officers of the 2nd Respondent and facilitated by the 4th Respondent, has violated her fundamental rights and freedoms under Articles 27(1)(2), 29, 31(b), 39(1), 40(1), and 47(1) of the Constitution. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents are liable for the actions of the police officers, who acted arbitrarily and in abuse of their powers. The 4th Respondent violated the Petitioner’s right to fair administrative action by transferring her motor vehicle without notice or a hearing. The 5th Respondent, by failing to assert its own position and allowing the 1st Respondent to act on his terms, bears liability for the loss of the vehicle KBW 649W. 76.Accordingly, this Court makes the following final orders:a.A declaration be and is hereby issued that the 1st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent (through its officers), and the 4th Respondent have breached and violated the Petitioner’s rights and fundamental freedoms under Articles 27(1)(2), 29, 31(b), 39(1), 40(1), and 47(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.b.An order be and is hereby issued compelling the 4th Respondent, the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA), to cancel the registration of the 5th Respondent, Africa 2000 Network Kenya, as the proprietor of Motor Vehicle Registration Number KAW 567C, Toyota Hiace, and to re-register the Petitioner, Irene Moraa Atika, as the sole proprietor of the said motor vehicle. The 4th Respondent shall also remove any caveat placed on the said motor vehicle. This order shall be complied with within fourteen (14) days from the date hereof.c.A declaration be and is hereby issued that Motor Vehicle Registration Number KBW 649W, Toyota Hilux Double Cabin, was donated for the benefit of Africa 2000 Network Educational Centre and was held in trust by the 5th Respondent for the said Centre. Consequently, the 1st Respondent and the 5th Respondent are hereby ordered, jointly and severally, to pay the Petitioner the sum of USD 25,000 (United States Dollars Twenty-Five Thousand) or its equivalent in Kenyan Shillings at the prevailing exchange rate at the time of payment, being the value of the said motor vehicle. This payment shall be made within sixty (60) days from the date of this judgment, with interest at court computation and rates thereafter until paid in full.d.An order be and is hereby issued compelling the 1st Respondent, Aloice Oduor Odhiambo, to return to the Petitioner all her academic documents and certificates together with all the assorted items listed in the inventory annexed as “IMA9(b)” to the Petitioner’s Supporting Affidavit. The 1st Respondent shall comply with this order within forty-five (45) days from the date of this judgment. In default, the Petitioner shall be at liberty to apply to this Court for an order for the assessment of the value of the said items and for a decree for the assessed amount, as well as for contempt proceedings.e.A permanent injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent or their officers, servants, employees, or agents from harassing, threatening, intimidating, assaulting, distressing, annoying, or otherwise interfering with the Petitioner’s rights and fundamental freedoms and those of her family.f.A permanent injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the 2nd Respondent or his officers from illegally and arbitrarily arresting and detaining the Petitioner. Provided that if the 2nd Respondent and the Interested Party have credible and admissible evidence to charge the Petitioner with an offence, they may do so by presenting her to a court of law for plea, and due process shall thereafter take its course. However, the 2nd Respondent and the Interested Party are hereby directed to make a final decision on the inquiry file No. 6/2022 at ODPP Ruiru within thirty (30) days from the date of this judgment, and to either charge the Petitioner or close the file and discharge her unconditionally.g.A permanent injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent from operating or in any manner interfering with the Petitioner’s peaceful ownership, possession, or operation of Motor Vehicle Registration Number KAW 567C, Toyota Hiace.h.Costs are awarded to the Petitioner and to be borne by the 1st and 5th Respondents.Orders accordingly. File Closed Accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY 2026.BAHATI MWAMUYE MBSJUDGEIn the presence of: -Counsel for the Petitioner – Mr. AngwenyiThe 1st Respondent - AbsentCounsel for the 2nd & 3rd Respondents - AbsentCounsel for the 4th Respondent - AbsentCounsel for the 5th Respondent - AbsentCounsel for the Interested Party – Mr. AchochiCourt Assistant – Mr. Martin