[2020] KEHC 1278 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 1278 (KLR)

The High Court found that the lower court had not acted improperly or illegally in issuing or extending the freezing orders. The record showed that the lower court consistently set specific dates for inter partes hearing and extended the orders for definite periods, not indefinitely. The disruptions in the hearing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 1278 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Bashir Adan Abdi; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Miscellaneous Application 65 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Lower Court Freezing Orders
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Account Freezing Orders, Revision Jurisdiction, Ex Parte Orders, Right to Be Heard
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Account Freezing Orders Revision Jurisdiction Ex Parte Orders Right to Be Heard

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bashir Adan Abdi

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Lower Court Freezing Orders

  1. 1 Whether the lower court's freezing orders were issued and extended improperly or indefinitely.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied the right to be heard before the lower court.
  3. 3 Whether there was any illegality, error, or impropriety in the lower court's orders warranting revision by the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the lower court had not acted improperly or illegally in issuing or extending the freezing orders. The record showed that the lower court consistently set specific dates for inter partes hearing and extended the orders for definite periods, not indefinitely. The disruptions in the hearing schedule were attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic, not to any fault or impropriety by the lower court. The applicant had not demonstrated any error, illegality, or impropriety in the lower court's conduct. The applicant still retained the right to be heard inter partes before the lower court, and thus, there was no basis for the High Court to revise the orders at this stage.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 2.3.2020 and filed on the same date is dismissed.