[2009] KEHC 1355 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 1355 (KLR)

The High Court found that the applicant was only entitled to seek the defreezing of accounts in his own name, as he had not demonstrated any legal interest in the other accounts. The court recognized the reconciliation between the applicant and the complainant and the complainant's intention not to testify, which...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 1355 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Franklin Kamau Kamathi; Respondent: The Hon. The Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Application 530 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Originating Notice of Motion Under Section 65(2) of the Constitution Seeking Revision and Defreezing of Bank Accounts
Outcome
Application partially allowed.
Judges
A. Ong’injo
Legal Topics
Supervisory Jurisdiction, Freezing of Bank Accounts, Withdrawal of Criminal Charges, Reconciliation in Criminal Cases
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Supervisory Jurisdiction Freezing of Bank Accounts Withdrawal of Criminal Charges Reconciliation in Criminal Cases

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Franklin Kamau Kamathi

Applicant

The Hon. The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Originating Notice of Motion Under Section 65(2) of the Constitution Seeking Revision and Defreezing of Bank Accounts

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to revise or set aside the Chief Magistrate's order freezing the applicant's bank accounts.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to the defreezing of accounts not in his name.
  3. 3 Whether the withdrawal of certain criminal charges by the complainant justifies the lifting of the freeze orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the applicant was only entitled to seek the defreezing of accounts in his own name, as he had not demonstrated any legal interest in the other accounts. The court recognized the reconciliation between the applicant and the complainant and the complainant's intention not to testify, which undermined the basis for the continued freezing of the applicant's accounts. However, the court imposed conditions to ensure that the funds, if required as exhibits in the ongoing criminal proceedings, would remain available. The court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to direct the Chief Magistrate to allow withdrawal of non-felony counts and ordered the defreezing of the...

Court Disposition

Application partially allowed.

Orders

  • The Chief Magistrate, Kibera, is directed to allow the complainant to withdraw counts that do not amount to a felony.
  • The applicant's accounts at Chase Bank Limited (Account No. 5009468007) and Standard Chartered Bank Limited (Account No. 0101718263600) are defrozen, subject to the banks confirming the total amounts held within 7 days and guaranteeing to provide a similar amount during trial if required as exhibit.