[2025] KEHC 515 (KLR)
The court held that since the applicant had not sought the release of the detained motor vehicle before the trial court, and the trial court had not rendered a determination on the matter, it would be premature for the High Court to grant the orders sought. The proper procedure requires the applicant to first move...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 515 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ian Mandela Omondi; Respondent: Director Of Public Prosecution; Respondent: Director Of Criminal Investigations; Respondent: Inspector General Of Police
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E199 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Release of Detained Property
- Outcome
- application declined; applicant directed to seek relief before trial court
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Detention of Property, Release of Exhibits, Jurisdiction of Trial Court
- 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
Ian Mandela Omondi
Applicant
Director Of Public Prosecution
Respondent
Director Of Criminal Investigations
Respondent
Inspector General Of Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Release of Detained Property
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should order the release of the applicant's motor vehicle detained at the police station.
- 2 Whether the applicant should first seek release of the motor vehicle before the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the applicant had not sought the release of the detained motor vehicle before the trial court, and the trial court had not rendered a determination on the matter, it would be premature for the High Court to grant the orders sought. The proper procedure requires the applicant to first move the trial court for release of the property. Only after the trial court has considered and determined the application, and if the applicant is dissatisfied, can the High Court be approached for further relief. The application was therefore declined at this stage, and the applicant directed to file the application before the trial court.
Court Disposition
application declined; applicant directed to seek relief before trial court
Orders
- The application is declined at this stage.
- The applicant is directed to file the application for release of the motor vehicle before the trial court in the first instance.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Omondi v Director of Public Prosecution & 2 others (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E199 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 515 (KLR) (28 January 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 515 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E199 of 2024
DR Kavedza, J
January 28, 2025
Between
Ian Mandela Omondi
Applicant
and
Director Of Public Prosecution
1st Respondent
Director Of Criminal Investigations
2nd Respondent
Inspector General Of Police
3rd Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant filed the notice of motion dated 3rd December 2024 seeking the release of motor vehicle registration number KAT 213P 14-seater van held at Langata Police station. The application is supported by grounds on the face thereof and an affidavit sworn by the applicant.
2. The averments made are that the applicant is the registered owner of motor vehicle registration number KAT 213P. On 30th March 2022 the driver of the motor vehicle was arrested and charged at Kibera Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case no. E580 of 2022. The motor vehicle was detained at Langata Police Station. On 12th October 2023, the accused was acquitted of all charges. However, attempts to secure the release of the motor vehicle have been futile. The vehicle continues to be detained and is subject to wear and tear in its current state. There is no justification for its continued detention.
3. The application was canvassed by way of oral submissions which have been duly considered and there is no need to rehash them. Having considered the application, the responses, and the applicable law, the issue for determinationis whether the applicant should be granted the orders sought.
4. Upon perusal of the record and pleadings, it is evident that the subject motor vehicle has been under detention since 2022. However, there is no indication that the applicant has sought the release of the motor vehicle by way of an application before the trial court.
5. In light of the foregoing, this court declines to grant any orders at this stage, as the trial court has not yet rendered a determination on the matter. The applicant is hereby directed to file the application for release of the motor vehicle before the trial court in the first instance.Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 28THDAY OF JANUARY 2025___________________D. KAVEDZAJUDGE