[2020] KEHC 4933 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 4933 (KLR)

The trial magistrate failed to comply with the mandatory procedure for forfeiture as set out in Section 389A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires that notice be served on the person believed to be the owner of the property and an opportunity be given to show cause why forfeiture should not be ordered. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 4933 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: G4S Kenya Limited; Respondent: Office of the Director of Public Prosecution
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Busia
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 9 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Forfeiture Order
Outcome
Application allowed. Forfeiture order set aside. Matter remitted for proper forfeiture proceedings.
Judges
SN Riechi
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Property, Revision Jurisdiction, Criminal Procedure, Right to Property
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Forfeiture of Property Revision Jurisdiction Criminal Procedure Right to Property

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G4S Kenya Limited

Applicant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecution

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Forfeiture Order

  1. 1 Whether the trial court followed the correct legal procedure in ordering forfeiture of motor vehicle registration number KCM 849A Isuzu FRR Truck.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant, as beneficial owner or lessee, was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before forfeiture.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court should revise or set aside the forfeiture order for non-compliance with statutory procedure.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial magistrate failed to comply with the mandatory procedure for forfeiture as set out in Section 389A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires that notice be served on the person believed to be the owner of the property and an opportunity be given to show cause why forfeiture should not be ordered. The absence of such notice and hearing rendered the forfeiture order irregular and contrary to law. The High Court, exercising its revisionary jurisdiction under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, found that the order for forfeiture of the motor vehicle was made without adherence to the required legal process. Consequently, the forfeiture order was set aside and the matter...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Forfeiture order set aside. Matter remitted for proper forfeiture proceedings.

Orders

  • The order for forfeiture of Motor Vehicle Registration No. KCM 849A Isuzu FRR Truck is set aside.
  • The trial magistrate is directed to conduct proper forfeiture proceedings in accordance with Section 389A of the Criminal Procedure Code.