[2018] KEHC 10135 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 10135 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated full cooperation with the police by providing all relevant information and access to the suspect’s location. The respondents failed to provide cogent evidence of non-cooperation or justify the continued detention of the vehicle. The court emphasized that the right...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 10135 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Martin Thiong’o Nyamwathi; Respondent: Divisional Criminal Investigation Officer Kabete; Respondent: National Police Service; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecution
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application 453 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Release of Detained Property
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Detention of Property, Release of Exhibits, Police Powers, Right to Property
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Detention of Property Release of Exhibits Police Powers 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Thiong’o Nyamwathi

Applicant

Divisional Criminal Investigation Officer Kabete

Respondent

National Police Service

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecution

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Release of Detained Property

  1. 1 Whether continued detention of the applicant’s motor vehicle by the police is justified.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has cooperated sufficiently with police investigations to warrant release of the vehicle.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant’s constitutional right to property is being infringed by the continued detention.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated full cooperation with the police by providing all relevant information and access to the suspect’s location. The respondents failed to provide cogent evidence of non-cooperation or justify the continued detention of the vehicle. The court emphasized that the right to property is constitutionally protected and that the applicant should not be deprived of his means of livelihood indefinitely, especially where the police have not shown reasonable progress in apprehending the actual suspect. The court held that the police could secure evidence by photographing the vehicle and retaining the log book, rather than detaining the vehicle itself,...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The DCI Kabete is directed to release motor vehicle registration No. KAK 486Y to the applicant immediately upon receipt of this order.
  • The Investigating Officer and/or the DCI Kabete shall take necessary photographs of the motor vehicle to serve as evidence in future in case of criminal proceedings.