[2025] KEHC 233 (KLR)
The High Court found that the Applicants' application for release of seized property was an abuse of the court's process because the same application had already been determined and dismissed by the trial court. The proper remedy for the Applicants, if dissatisfied with the trial court's decision, was to file an...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 233 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Gitau; Applicant: Vincent Kibagendi; Applicant: Mary Mugure; Respondent: ODPP; Respondent: OCS Nakuru Police Station; Respondent: KRA
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Judgment Date
- 23 January 2025
- Case Number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application E228 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Release of Seized Property
- Outcome
- application struck out as abuse of process
- Judges
- JM Nang'ea
- Legal Topics
- Release of Exhibits, Abuse of Process, Forfeiture of Property
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter Gitau
Applicant
Vincent Kibagendi
Applicant
Mary Mugure
Applicant
ODPP
Respondent
OCS Nakuru Police Station
Respondent
KRA
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Release of Seized Property
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should order the release of items seized by police and held as exhibits in an ongoing criminal trial.
- 2 Whether the application before the High Court constitutes an abuse of court process given a similar application was dismissed by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the Applicants' application for release of seized property was an abuse of the court's process because the same application had already been determined and dismissed by the trial court. The proper remedy for the Applicants, if dissatisfied with the trial court's decision, was to file an appeal rather than bring a fresh application before the High Court. The court emphasized that the seized items are exhibits in the ongoing criminal trial and may be subject to forfeiture upon its conclusion. Accordingly, the application was struck out without consideration of its merits.
Court Disposition
application struck out as abuse of process
Orders
- The application is struck out for being an abuse of the court's process.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Gitau & 2 others v ODPP & 2 others (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E228 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 233 (KLR) (23 January 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 233 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nakuru
Criminal Miscellaneous Application E228 of 2024
JM Nang'ea, J
January 23, 2025
Between
Peter Gitau
1st Applicant
Vincent Kibagendi
2nd Applicant
Mary Mugure
3rd Applicant
and
ODPP
1st Respondent
OCS Nakuru Police Station
2nd Respondent
KRA
3rd Respondent
Ruling
1. The Applicants seek release of a Plastic Molding Machine, files and official documents among other stated items the police seized purportedly to conduct some criminal investigations. The Applicants were later charged in court, and their plea for release of the properties was declined by the Respondents. The Applicants lament that the confiscated items are their tools of trade.
2. The Respondents oppose the application through the 3rd Respondent’s Affidavit. They contend that the exhibits were lawfully seized and are to be used as evidence in the prosecution of the Applicants. The Respondents also bought to the court’s attention that the Applicants had made a similar application before the trial court which was dismissed.
3. Having perused the application, the Respondents’ reply and Counsel oral submissions, it is not in dispute that the trial court has heard the same application and declined to allow it for reasons inter alia that the items are exhibits before it and that some of them could be forfeited upon conclusion of the trial.
4. Without going into the merits of the application, I find that the same is an abuse of the court’s process. If the Applicants were dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, the proper course of action was to file appeal and not bring the same application before this court.
5. The application is accordingly struck out for being an abuse of the court’s process.
J. M. NANG’EA, JUDGE.RULING DELIVERED THIS 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 IN THE PRESENCE OF:The Prosecution Counsel, Ms SangApplicant’s Advocate, Ms Kemunto for Mr. MongeriApplicants, All presentThe Court Assistant, JenifferJ. M. NANG’EA, JUDGE.