[2017] KEHC 4436 (KLR)
The court found that the Respondents, having failed to file any response or submissions despite being duly served and represented, did not provide any lawful justification for the continued retention of the Applicant's property. There was no evidence of any complaint or criminal charge relating to the seized items....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 4436 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Maurice Odhiambo Wasonga; Respondent: Geoffrey V. K. Okumu (IP); Respondent: Lekakeny Moses (SP); Respondent: Simon K. Ngeny (IP); Respondent: OCS Migori Police Station; Respondent: Migori Criminal Investigating Officer
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Migori
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Release of Property
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- AC Mrima
- Legal Topics
- Release of Property, Police Powers, Return of Seized Goods
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Maurice Odhiambo Wasonga
Applicant
Geoffrey V. K. Okumu (IP)
Respondent
Lekakeny Moses (SP)
Respondent
Simon K. Ngeny (IP)
Respondent
OCS Migori Police Station
Respondent
Migori Criminal Investigating Officer
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Release of Property
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Respondents should be compelled to release the Applicant's listed properties seized from his home.
- 2 Whether the continued retention of the Applicant's property by the police is lawful in the absence of any charges or complaints.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Respondents, having failed to file any response or submissions despite being duly served and represented, did not provide any lawful justification for the continued retention of the Applicant's property. There was no evidence of any complaint or criminal charge relating to the seized items. In the absence of opposition and given the Applicant's uncontested affidavit and submissions, the court held that the Applicant was entitled to the release of his property. The application was therefore allowed as prayed in prayers 2 and 3 of the Notice of Motion dated 01/02/2017.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The Respondents are compelled to unconditionally and forthwith release the Applicant's listed properties to the Applicant.
- The costs of the application are to be borne by the Respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MIGORI
CIVIL MISC APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2017
MAURICE ODHIAMBO WASONGA…………………….APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. GEOFFREY V. K. OKUMU (IP)
2. LEKAKENY MOSES (SP)
3. SIMON K. NGENY (IP)
4. OCS MIGORI POLICE /STATION
5. MIGORI CRIMINAL INVESTIGATING OFFICER…RESPONDENT
RULING
1. By a Notice of Motion dated 01/02/2017 and evenly filed, the Applicant prayed for the following orders: -
‘1. THAT this matter be certified as urgent so that the same be heard expeditiously.
2. THAT the Respondents herein be compelled by this Honourable Court to unconditionally and forthwith released the following Applicants properties to the Applicant herein;
(a) 4 pairs of New tyres size 195R15C.
(b) 2 Head Lamps TY027.
(c ) Two pair of alarm systems (Car) 912/4223.
(d) 1 Plumber VIGO O/M.
(f) 2Mack Book pro CIMS929XDTYS ANS.CIMS91CIDTY3.
(g) 5 pieces of Islamic cloths.
(h) 2 Public address speaker with two stands 5SCORE.
(i) 1 bulb holder frame.
(j) One music mixers S/No. 51502266811 Model 5X2442FX.
(k) 1 Honda Generator.
(l) 1 empty HP Box S/No.CND62910KL HP250 95.
(m)1 Toyota Hilux KAW 113w Blue on colour.
(n)1 Aitel Modem IMEI 867010024935448.
3. THAT the cost of this Application be born by the Respondents herein.
2. The application was supported by the Affidavit of the Applicant sworn on 31/01/2017. That application was duly served on the Respondents and Miss Owenga, Senior Principal Prosecution Counsel from the Office of the Public Prosecutions Migori County appeared for the Respondents. The Respondents were given time to file their responses on several instances but in vain.
3. Upon concurrence of the Counsels, the parties were directed t file written submissions to the application. Whereas the Applicant filed his written submissions, the Respondents did not.
4. From the record, the Applicant contends that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents under the instructions of the 4th and 5th Respondents proceeded to the Applicant’s home at Suna Nyabisawa Location on 28/01/2017 at about 01:30am and took away several items without giving the Applicant any notice or reasons thereof. During the exercise, the Respondents prepared an Inventory which was duly signed and a copy given to the Applicant. That inventory is marked as Exhibit ‘LMOW-1’ in the Applicant’s Supporting Affidavit.
5. The Applicant avers that no one has ever lodged any complaint against any of the said items and that the said items are wasted at the Migori Police Station. Further, no charges have been preferred against him in respect to the items. The Applicant sees the conduct of the Respondents as an intrusion of his privacy. He prays for the orders sought.
6. As the application is not opposed and given that the Respondents were duly represented, this Court finds merit in the application. Prayers 2 and 3of the Notice of Motion dated and filed on 01/02/2017 are hereby allowed as prayed.
Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED, DATEDand SIGNED at MIGORI this 29th day of June 2017.
A. C. MRIMA
JUDGE