[2015] KEHC 2558 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 2558 (KLR)

The High Court held that since the cedar posts were never produced before the trial court as exhibits, the court had no power to order their release to any claimant. The trial court's refusal to release the consignment was proper, as it did not have custody of the goods. The subsequent miscellaneous application...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 2558 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Waweru; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision 1 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Determination of Revision Request
Outcome
revision request rejected
Judges
CW Meoli
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Property, Release of Exhibits, Possession of Forest Produce
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Forfeiture of Property Release of Exhibits Possession of Forest Produce

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Waweru

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Determination of Revision Request

  1. 1 Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to order release of cedar posts not produced as exhibits.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to an order for release of the cedar posts after acquittal.
  3. 3 Whether the lower court's refusal to release the consignment was proper.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that since the cedar posts were never produced before the trial court as exhibits, the court had no power to order their release to any claimant. The trial court's refusal to release the consignment was proper, as it did not have custody of the goods. The subsequent miscellaneous application seeking release of the posts was misguided and without basis, as the original refusal was correctly made. There was no question of forfeiture arising from the court proceedings, and no legal basis for the High Court to order the Forest Officer to release the goods. The revision request was therefore rejected for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

revision request rejected

Orders

  • The revision request is rejected.
  • No order for release of the cedar posts is made.