[2020] KEHC 1281 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 1281 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant was entitled to the release of the motor vehicle, provided that adequate measures were taken to preserve its evidentiary value, including photographing and filming the vehicle and requiring the applicant to maintain safe custody and produce it as needed. The court declined to release the two mobile phones, presumably because their continued detention was necessary for the criminal case. The orders were made by consent regarding the vehicle, reflecting agreement between the parties on the conditions for its release.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 1281 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mary Jocinter Atieno Oduor; Respondent: DCIO Ukwala Police Station; Respondent: Beatrice Awuor Oduor
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Siaya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
18 November 2020
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Case E3 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Release of Property
Outcome
Application partly allowed.
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Release of Exhibits, Custody of Property, Criminal Case Exhibits
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Release of Exhibits Custody of Property Criminal Case Exhibits

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Jocinter Atieno Oduor

Applicant

DCIO Ukwala Police Station

Respondent

Beatrice Awuor Oduor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Release of Property

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to the release of Motor Vehicle Reg. No. KAR 344C pending the hearing and determination of the related criminal case.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to the release of two mobile phones held as exhibits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was entitled to the release of the motor vehicle, provided that adequate measures were taken to preserve its evidentiary value, including photographing and filming the vehicle and requiring the applicant to maintain safe custody and produce it as needed. The court declined to release the two mobile phones, presumably because their continued detention was necessary for the criminal case. The orders were made by consent regarding the vehicle, reflecting agreement between the parties on the conditions for its release.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed.

Orders

  • Motor Vehicle Reg. No. KAR 344C Toyota Station Wagon to be released to the applicant upon photographing and filming by scenes of crime personnel, with photographs and films preserved for the criminal case.
  • Applicant to ensure safe custody of the motor vehicle and avail it to court as required for the criminal case.