[2021] KEHC 3448 (KLR)
The court determined that the issues raised in the petition, including the alleged breach of constitutional rights, the nature of the seized goods, and the claim for damages, involve contested facts that cannot be resolved solely on affidavit evidence. The credibility of witnesses and the physical examination of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 3448 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mavazi Textiles and Branding Limited; Respondent: Anti Counterfeit Urgency; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Director of Criminal Investigations; Respondent: Inspector General of Police; Respondent: Attorney General; Respondent: Bata Shoe Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 2 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Directions Before Oral Hearing
- Outcome
- Matter to proceed by way of oral evidence; conservatory orders extended.
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Counterfeit Goods, Right to Fair Trial, Damages for Breach of Rights, Intellectual Property Infringement
- 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
Mavazi Textiles and Branding Limited
Applicant
Anti Counterfeit Urgency
Respondent
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Director of Criminal Investigations
Respondent
Inspector General of Police
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
Bata Shoe Kenya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Directions Before Oral Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents breached the petitioner's constitutional rights through criminal proceedings and seizure of goods.
- 2 Whether the dispute regarding alleged counterfeit goods requires oral evidence for proper determination.
- 3 Whether damages can be determined on affidavit evidence alone.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that the issues raised in the petition, including the alleged breach of constitutional rights, the nature of the seized goods, and the claim for damages, involve contested facts that cannot be resolved solely on affidavit evidence. The credibility of witnesses and the physical examination of the alleged counterfeit goods are central to the dispute. Therefore, justice requires that the matter proceed by way of oral evidence, allowing parties to present witness testimony and documentary evidence. The conservatory orders previously granted to the petitioner are extended until the final determination of the petition.
Court Disposition
Matter to proceed by way of oral evidence; conservatory orders extended.
Orders
- The two petitions shall be determined by way of oral evidence.
- The petitioner shall be the plaintiff and the respondents the defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
PETITION NO. 2 OF 2019
MAVAZI TEXTILES AND BRANDING LIMITED.....................PETITIONER
VERSUS
ANTI COUNTERFEIT URGENCY......................................1ST RESPONDENT
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS............2ND RESPONDENT
THE DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS...3RD RESPONDENT
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE...............................4TH RESPONDENT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.............................................5TH RESPONDENT
BATA SHOE KENYA............................................................6TH RESPONDENT
DIRECTIONS
1. The petitioners petition dated 16th January 2019 sought several prayers including prohibiting the respondents from breaching several Articles of the constitution it has enumerated therein as well as arraigning the directors and or its employees in court through a criminal process. The petitioner has also prayed for damages as a result of the loss it has incurred pursuant to the actions by the respondents especially the 1st and the 6th respondents.
2. The 6th respondent on its part has also filed a cross petition seeking interlia to stop the petitioner from breaching among others Article 40 of the Constitution.
3. The petitioner did as well file an application seeking conservatory orders against the respondents from proceeding with a criminal charge against it as well as its servants and or agents. The court in the initial stage issued the said conservatory orders which are still subsisting.
4. When this matter came up for hearing the court directed that the same be determined by way of written submissions. Indeed, all the parties have complied. The court has also perused the same together with the attached legal authorities.
5. The court having gone through the same is of the considered opinion that this petition cannot be determined by way of affidavits alone. There are weighty issues which needs adduction of oral evidence. The issue between the petitioner and the 6th respondent may not come out clearly unless witnesses are put in the dock.
6. Is it true for instance that the 6th petitioner blackmailed the petitioner? That is a serious issue which on the face of it needs to be thoroughly investigated through viva voce evidence.
7. The items which were recovered from the petitioner cannot be shown to the court via photocopies of their images. The court must see and have a feel of them. Whether they are counterfeits or not will only come out once the court physically has a look at them. This is the real borne of contention between the parties herein.
8. The issue of damages cannot be determined by affidavit evidence alone as well. Serious accounts ought to be presented.
9. Justice shall be done to the two petitioners after taking the usual long route of listening to the parties orally. The court is alive to the fact that much time has been lost but that is our litigation.
10. In the premises, the court makes the following orders;
a) The two petitions shall be determined by way of oral evidence.
b) The petitioner shall be the plaintiff and the respondents the defendants.
c) Parties are hereby granted leave to file and exchange their witness statements and any other documentary evidence if need be within 30 days from the date herein.
d) The conservatory orders issued in favour of the petitioner stopping any criminal action against it or its directors and or employees is extended till the petition is determined.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA ELECTRONIC LINK AT NAKURU THIS 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021.
H .K. CHEMITEI
JUDGE