https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11085

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **CIVIL DIVISION** **CIVIL CASE NO. E158 OF 2025** **PATRICK MUGAMBI MUTWIRI…………….…….………….PLAINTIFF** **VERSUS** **STATELAW OFFICE……………………………..………1ST DEFENDANT** **KABETE POLICE STATION………………..………….2ND DEFENDANT** **DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION…... 3RD DEFENDANT** **AND** **SUCHITA DHANANI suing on behalf on the** ***Estate of the late Amrjit Sehmi******……….*PROPOSED INTERESTED** **PARTY/APPLICANT** **RULING** ***(on motion dated 19/9/2025)*** **Brief background** 1. The Plaintiff **Patrick Mugambi Mutwiri** *(hereafter Applicant)* in his **motion dated 17/06/2025** sought orders as against the Defendants (hereafter Respondents) particularly in respect of his alleged motor vehicle Registration number KCQ 190 M Toyota Hilux double Cabin which he alleged to have been impounded and detained by the DCI Kabete without any charge or lawful justification. 2. The above motion was filed simultaneously with the Plaint on an even date wherein the Plaintiff sought release to him of the said motor vehicle, general damages for inconvenience, deprivation of use and unlawful detention of the vehicle and costs of the suit. The motion was predicted upon provisions of **Article 165 (6) and 40 and Order 12 rule 2, and Order 17 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).** 3. The Applicant sought an order compelling the Defendants to release the motor vehicle pending hearing and determination of the motion, as well as an order restraining them from transferring, alienating or in any manner dealing with the vehicle pending hearing and determination of the suit. 4. **On 19/06/2025** the court upon interrogation of the supporting affidavit and annextures thereto including copy of the vehicle logbook issued an interim order in terms of prayer 3 thereof compelling the Defendants to release the vehicle to the Plaintiff, which interim order the Defendants complied with and released the vehicle to the Plaintiff. 5. **On 17/07/2025**, the Applicant by his Advocate Ms. Moranda told the court that as the impugned vehicle had been released, the **motion dated 17/06/2025** and the entire suit was spent which the court duly noted, and directed that the matter be mentioned before the courts Deputy Registrar for further directions on the main suit on 30/9/2025. This did not happen as soon thereafter a **proposed** **interested party,** **Suchita Dhanani** describing himself as abovebrought a motion under **Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPR,** seeking leave to be enjoined in the proceedings as an interested party, citing grounds that the impugned motor vehicle registration number KCQ 190 M, its registration and transfer to the Plaintiff were fraudulently and unlawfully obtained, and therefore ought to be declared null and void, evincing sale agreement and transfer logbook as **“PMM -1 & 2”.** 6. The intended Interested Party also sought an order setting aside the orders issued by the court on 24/06/2025 on motion dated 17/06/2025, and an order directed to the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) to cancel the said registration and revert ownership to Pharos Architects (K) Limited in the interim. 7. Upon the above backdrop, the court by an order dated 4/11/2025 granted leave to the Applicant to be enjoined as an Interested Party to the proceedings, as well as reiterating, by its prayer 6 that in the interim, the said motor vehicle, then in custody of the Plaintiff should not be disposed of, transferred to a third party, or dealing with it adversely pending hearing and determination of the application. **Motion dated 19/09/2025** 1. Here, the Proposed Interested/Applicant is represented by the Law firm of Conrad Law Advocates LLP. The Applicant’s case as may be garnered from his affidavit material placed before the court via its affidavit in support of an even date posits that at all material times, the impugned vehicle was registered in the name of Pharos Architects (K) Limited and NCBA bank Limited, annexing copy of NTSA logbook prior to the unlawful transfer and marked **“SD-2”.** 2. That in 2025, the vehicle was impounded by Auctioneers in execution of distress for rent on its instructions and placed under custody of Kabete Police Station, that he was later shocked to learn that the vehicle was transferred to the Plaintiff yet it was owned by pharos Architects (K) Limited annexing logbook in the plaintiffs name marked as **“SD-3”.** 3. The Applicant further averred that orders of court issued on 24/06/2025 were made without the Plaintiff’s disclosure of materials facts, being the unlawful registration of the vehicle in the Plaintiff’s name thus perpetuating an illegality occasioning grave prejudice to the Estate he represents, and the lawful owners of the vehicle, thus seeking an order setting aside the orders of 24/06/2025 the same having been obtained illegally and fraudulently. 4. The court issued directions on filing responses by all parties to the instant. At the time, to wit,4/2/2026, the Respondent/Plaintiff was represented by Advocate Mr. Abdi. Parties were also directed to file their respective submissions on the motion. None complied. **Analysis and Determination** 1. The Respondent/Plaintiff having failed to file any objections to the motion dated 19/09/2025 it is deemed as unopposed. That said the court postulates the as issues for determination concern;- 1. *Whether the orders issued by the court on 24/06/2025 should be set aside and or reviewed.* 2. *Whether NTSA should be ordered to cancel registration of the suit vehicle Reg. No. KCQ 190M in the name of Patrick Mugambi Mutwiri.* 3. *Whether an order of interim injunction should issue restraining the Plaintiff/Respondent from selling, charging, disposing or dealing with the said vehicle pending hearing and determination of this application.* 4. The court proposes to interrogate the above issues simultaneously as they are closely related. ***On whether orders of this court issued on 24/09/2025 ought to be set aside or reviewed, and whether NTSA should be ordered to cancel registration of the vehicle in plaintiff’s name?*** 1. Upon affidavit material adduced by the Respondents on its motion dated 17/06/2025, the court was duly persuaded to issue the same, the plaintiff having told the court that the suit had been duly settled and the motion spent. 2. That said, upon the instant motion dated 19/09/2025, which is apparently not controverted, it has become clear to the court that the affidavit material the court relied upon was not factually correct, as now garnered from the counter affidavit by the Interested Party’s affidavit sworn on 19/09/2025. 3. The court notes that at the material time, the subject vehicle was registered in the name of a third party Pharos architects (K) Limited as well as a financier NCBA as seen from the logbook marked **“SD-2”** 4. That the non-disclosure of the above material facts is a matter of determination by the court on evidence hearing as a vehicle cannot legally and lawfully be registered to two different owners at the same time, thereby raising doubts in the courts mind as to the question as to which of the disputant parties hereto is the lawful and or genuine owner of the subject vehicle. 5. The court is persuaded that it is only NTSA, as the only statutory body that can explain the double registration of the subject vehicle to two parties at the same time, and whether due process was carried in the registration of the vehicle to either and or both parties. 6. That said, and as earlier stated in this ruling, the vehicle is in possession of, and use by the Plaintiff Patrick Mugambi Mutwiri, by dint of orders **of the court dated 24/06/2025.** To be asked to set them aside at the interlocutory stage as it obtains here, in my view would be determining the main suit in an interlocutory stage of the proceedings. 7. In the same breath, the court is persuaded to grant prayer number 6 of the instant motion to restrain the Plaintiff from dealing adversely with the said vehicle, selling, charging, transferring or in any manner dealing with the vehicle pending full hearing of the suit. 8. Whereas the Applicant here seeks an order directing NTSA to cancel the registration of the subject vehicle in the Plaintiff’s name, and revert it to the name of Pharos Architects (K) Ltd, again, to purport to do so would be to determine the entire suit prematurely and irregularly, without the parties being accorded opportunity to call evidence on how each party acquired registration to itself. The Applicant's prayer can therefore not sustain. ***Whether an interlocutory injunction should issue directed to the Plaintiff, barring him from using and dealing with the subject vehicle?*** 1. In the first instance the Interested Party does not tell the court what it intends to do once the instant motion is determined, as its prayers are time bound, stated as pending hearing and determination of the application? 2. By a **court order issued on 22/09/2025**, the court granted the said order in the interim. My understanding of the said order is that the Plaintiff is already barred from disposing, transferring ownership or possession of the vehicle pending hearing and determination of this application. 3. So what happens once the ruling is delivered? I would say that the drafting of the motion by counsel for the Interested Party leaves a lot to be desired. This prayer, in my view, is already spent;to wit, lapses as at date of delivery of this ruling. 1. Whereas the Plaintiff in its **motion dated 17/06/2025** at prayer 3 sought a similar order, but as against the Defendants, and which order was granted, also pending hearing and determination of the application, the same question arises, what after the ruling of the said application? Very poor drafting of the motion on behalf of the Plaintiff as well. 2. Now that both and all parties hereto have no clue as to thereafter, upon delivery of this ruling, I am guided by the provisions of **Order 1A, 1B and 3A of the CPR** for ends of justice to be seen to be done to the parties in this suitand respective applications. Here, the court is mandated to facilitate the just expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes. **Section 3A** thereof grants the court inherent power that is unlimited to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of court process. 3. The inherent power of the court was judiciously addressed by the Court of Appeal in **Rose Njoki Kingau & Onother v. Shaba Trustees Limited & Another [2010] KECA 87 (KLR)**, among others. 4. This suit is pending hearing and determination. It has not been struck off or in any manner terminated under the Civil Procedure Rules. I have perused the Plaint dated 17/06/2025 and the reliefs as sought. Parties are yet to take pretrial directions under Order 11. The vehicle is now in possession and use of the Plaintiff, Patrick Mugambi Mutwiri. 1. In the Court's considered opinion, the order that presents itself in the circumstance, in order to preserve the subject motor vehicle, is that; 2. **Pending hearing and determination of the suit, the subject motor vehicle Registration number KCQ 190 M, shall continue being in possession and use by the Plaintiff*.*** 3. **The Plaintiff by himself, his servants and or agents, is hereby restrained by an order of temporary injunction from selling, disposing, transferring, charging, or in any adverse manner dealin*g with* the said motor vehicle pending hearing and determination of the suit.** 4. **Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act grants the court power to determine by whom and to which party costs should be awarded.** **The circumstances of the motion before the court necessitates that each party bear their own costs of the motion** **Orders accordingly.** **Delivered Dated and Signed at Nairobi this 22nd day of July 2026.** ………………………. **JANET MULWA.** **JUDGE**