Gavrel Afrika Ltd v OCS Kilimani Police Station & another (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E106 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12039 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Ruling)

Gavrel Afrika Ltd v OCS Kilimani Police Station & another (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E106 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12039 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 12039 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kibera Miscellaneous Criminal Application E106 of 2026 DR Kavedza, J July 29, 2026 Between Gavrel Afrika Limited Applicant and Ocs Kilimani Police Station 1st Respondent Kenya Power And Lighting Company 2nd Respondent Ruling 1.Before the trial court, Bonface Materi Njeri, is charged with the offence of damaging energy installations and infrastructure contrary to section 169(1)(d) of the Energy Act, No. 1 of 2019. It is alleged that on 13th May 2026, at Wood Avenue Court off Wood Avenue, Kilimani Sub-County, Nairobi County, the applicant's employee, while driving motor vehicle registration number KCU 746S, a Mitsubishi Canter, pulled down overhead electrical conductors, thereby damaging a three-phase electricity line and two electricity poles belonging to the second respondent. The damage was assessed at Kshs.2,042,932. 2.By a Notice of Motion dated 6th June 2026, the applicant seeks the release of the impounded motor vehicle from Kilimani Police Station. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant's director. The applicant contends that the vehicle became entangled in low-hanging cables during the ordinary course of business because the cables were suspended below the required clearance due to a leaning electricity pole. It is further asserted that complaints regarding the defective pole had previously been made, that preliminary investigations absolved the driver of blame, and that he was consequently released on free police bond. The applicant maintains that the continued detention of the vehicle is solely at the insistence of the second respondent and has occasioned substantial economic loss to the company. 3.The respondents oppose the application through the replying affidavit of CPL Francis Aluda, the investigating officer. He depones that following the report made on 13th May 2026, a joint team of police officers, Kenya Power security personnel and technical officers visited the scene. Their investigations established that motor vehicle registration number KCU 746S struck and pulled down overhead electrical conductors, causing extensive damage to a transformer, two wooden poles, supporting structures and low-voltage conductors, resulting in widespread power outages. The scene was photographed and documented, and a technical assessment quantified the damage at Kshs.2,042,932. 4.The investigating officer further states that the driver admitted that he had not noticed the sagging conductors before striking them. The motor vehicle was thereafter detained as an exhibit while investigations continued. Although the driver was released on police bond, he subsequently failed to attend court, prompting the issuance of warrants of arrest. The respondents maintain that the motor vehicle constitutes a primary exhibit linking the alleged offence to the damage occasioned and remains necessary for evidential purposes. 5.The respondents contend that the continued detention of the vehicle is lawful and undertaken pursuant to the constitutional and statutory mandate of the National Police Service to investigate offences and preserve evidence. They argue that releasing the vehicle before it is formally produced in court would compromise the chain of custody, prejudice the intended prosecution and create a real risk that the exhibit may not be available during trial, particularly in view of the driver's failure to honour court process. They further submit that the applicant has failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, bad faith, abuse of power or any other basis warranting the court's intervention. Accordingly, they urge the court to dismiss the application as premature and devoid of merit. 6.The sole issue for determination is whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds to warrant the release of motor vehicle registration number KCU 746S pending the hearing and determination of the criminal proceedings before the trial court. 7.It is common ground that the motor vehicle is the subject of the charge pending before the subordinate court. The respondent alleges that it was the instrument through which the damage to the electricity infrastructure was occasioned. According to the investigating officer, the vehicle pulled down overhead electrical conductors, causing extensive damage to electricity installations. The scene was documented, the damage assessed, and the vehicle was immediately impounded and preserved as an exhibit. The respondent further depones that the vehicle forms part of the evidentiary chain linking the alleged offence to the applicant and is intended to be produced during the trial. 8.At this stage, the Court is not called upon to determine the accused’s guilt or innocence, nor to evaluate the strength of the prosecution's evidence. Those are matters reserved for the trial court upon hearing the evidence. The question is whether the continued detention of the vehicle is arbitrary or unlawful. On the material before this Court, the answer must be in the negative. 9.The respondents have demonstrated a clear evidential nexus between the motor vehicle and the offence charged. The vehicle is alleged to be the instrument by which the electricity infrastructure was damaged and, consequently, constitutes a primary exhibit in the pending criminal proceedings. There is nothing before this Court to suggest that the vehicle ceased to have evidential value or that its continued preservation is unnecessary. Releasing it before it is formally produced before the trial court would undermine the integrity of the prosecution's exhibits and the proper administration of criminal justice. 10.Criminal proceedings arising from the same facts are already pending before the trial court, which is seized of the matter. That court is best placed to determine any application concerning the custody, production or release of exhibits in the context of the proceedings before it. Entertaining the present application would amount to this Court usurping the trial court's case management powers and interfering with proceedings that are yet to run their course. 11.The applicant has not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances warranting the intervention of this Court. The alleged economic loss occasioned by the detention of the vehicle, without more, cannot override the public interest in preserving exhibits required for the prosecution of criminal offences. Neither has the applicant established that the respondents acted unlawfully, arbitrarily, in bad faith or in abuse of their statutory mandate. 12.Accordingly, I find that the respondents have satisfactorily demonstrated that motor vehicle registration number KCU 746S is a material exhibit in the pending criminal proceedings. The application before this Court is premature, and the appropriate forum for any request the release of the motor vehicle is the trial court seized of the criminal case against Bonface Materi Njeri. The application is therefore devoid of merit and is dismissed. Orders accordingly. RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY 2026__________________D. KAVEDZAJUDGEIn the presence of:Applicant PresentMutuma for the RespondentKarimi Court Assistant