[2022] KEHC 12915 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 12915 (KLR)

The trial magistrate exceeded jurisdiction by granting an order suspending the applicant's bank accounts for 90 days, as such suspension was not specifically prayed for in the application before the subordinate court. The issuance of the suspension order without service or hearing of the applicant contravened the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 12915 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Fructo Commodities Limited; Respondent: Republic (through the Banking Fraud Investigation Unit (BFIU)); Respondent: Chief Magistrate’s Court at Mombasa; Respondent: ECO Bank Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision 174 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Subordinate Court Orders
Outcome
Application allowed in part; order suspending applicant's bank accounts lifted; no order as to costs; leave to appeal granted to 1st respondent; application to stay court orders disallowed.
Judges
A. Ong’injo
Legal Topics
Bank Account Freeze Orders, Judicial Review of Magistrate Orders, Banking Fraud Investigations
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bank Account Freeze Orders Judicial Review of Magistrate Orders Banking Fraud Investigations

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fructo Commodities Limited

Applicant

Republic (through the Banking Fraud Investigation Unit (BFIU))

Respondent

Chief Magistrate’s Court at Mombasa

Respondent

ECO Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Subordinate Court Orders

  1. 1 Whether the trial magistrate acted ultra vires by suspending the applicant's bank accounts for 90 days without a specific prayer for such suspension.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's right to be heard under Article 50 of the Constitution was violated by the ex parte issuance of orders.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to revise the orders of the subordinate court under sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial magistrate exceeded jurisdiction by granting an order suspending the applicant's bank accounts for 90 days, as such suspension was not specifically prayed for in the application before the subordinate court. The issuance of the suspension order without service or hearing of the applicant contravened the applicant's right to a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution. The High Court, exercising its supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction under sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 165(6) of the Constitution, found the suspension order to be irregular and illegal. The preliminary objection based on section 13A of the Government Proceedings Act...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; order suspending applicant's bank accounts lifted; no order as to costs; leave to appeal granted to 1st respondent; application to stay court orders disallowed.

Orders

  • The order suspending the operations of account number xxxx and xxxx is lifted.
  • No order as to costs.