[2023] KEHC 22520 (KLR)
The High Court found no material to demonstrate any incorrectness, illegality, or impropriety in the subordinate court's proceedings. The trial magistrate correctly held that the vehicle, being central to the prosecution's case and not yet tendered as an exhibit, could not be released as it was not in the court's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 22520 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Baraka Credit Limited; Respondent: OCS Isiolo Police Station; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecution; Respondent: Michael Muhoro Kamau
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E070 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Order Refusing Release of Motor Vehicle
- Outcome
- application for revision dismissed
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Criminal Revision, Exhibits in Criminal Trial, Release of Property, Narcotic Offences
- 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
Baraka Credit Limited
Applicant
OCS Isiolo Police Station
Respondent
Director of Public Prosecution
Respondent
Michael Muhoro Kamau
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Order Refusing Release of Motor Vehicle
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should revise the subordinate court's order refusing release of the impounded vehicle to the applicant.
- 2 Whether the subordinate court acted with incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in refusing the release of the vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found no material to demonstrate any incorrectness, illegality, or impropriety in the subordinate court's proceedings. The trial magistrate correctly held that the vehicle, being central to the prosecution's case and not yet tendered as an exhibit, could not be released as it was not in the court's custody. Releasing the vehicle would undermine the prosecution's ability to prove its case. Therefore, the application for revision was unmerited and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application for revision dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision is disallowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Baraka Credit Limited v OCS Isiolo Police Station & 2 others (Criminal Revision E070 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 22520 (KLR) (21 September 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 22520 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Criminal Revision E070 of 2023
TW Cherere, J
September 21, 2023
Between
Baraka Credit Limited
Applicant
and
OCS Isiolo Police Station
1st Respondent
Director of Public Prosecution
2nd Respondent
Michael Muhoro Kamau
3rd Respondent
Ruling
1. The brief facts in the proceedings from Isiolo CM Misc Criminal Case No E016 of 2022 and the affidavit filed in this case reveal that Michael Muhoro Kamau (3rd Respondent) was charged in Isiolo Criminal Case. No E606 of 2021 with the offence of trafficking and or conveying narcotic drugs using M/V KCF xxx which was impounded upon his arrest.
2. By a ruling dated September 1, 2022, the trial magistrate dismissed the Applicant’s application dated February 4, 2022 filed in Isiolo CM Misc Criminal Case No E016 of 2022 seeking release of the vehicle to the Applicant on the grounds that the vehicle was an exhibit and its release would prejudice the prosecution case.
3. Applicants seeks a review of that order. I have considered the evidence and submissions tendered before the court.
4. The powers of the High court in revision cases are contained in Section 362 through to 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code (cap 75) Laws of Kenya. Section 362 specifically provides as follows: -'362. The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court'.
5. No material has been placed before the court to demonstrate any incorrectness, illegality or impropriety of the proceedings of the subordinate court. On the contrary, the trial magistrate’s finding that the court could not order release of a vehicle that was not tendered as an exhibit and therefore not in its custody was well founded. I totally agree with the trial magistrate’s finding that the release of the vehicle would leave the prosecution with a shell of a case incapable of being proved.
6. Consequently, I have come to the conclusion that the revision is unmerited and it is disallowed.
DATED AT MERU THIS 21 ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023WAMAE. T. W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistant - Mr. KinotiFor Applicant - Mr. Ayieko for Laichena Mugambi & Ayieko Advocates LLPFor 1st &2nd Respondents - Ms. Rita (PC-1)For 3rd Respondent - N/A