[2019] KEHC 777 (KLR)
The court found that the forfeiture order against the motorcycle was improper because the applicant was not its owner and the true owner, Auto Industries Limited, was not given an opportunity to contest the forfeiture. Since the state did not object and acknowledged the ownership, the court exercised its revisionary...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 777 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Patrick Ngutia; Respondent: Republic (Director of Public Prosecutions)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 31 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Judgment
- Outcome
- application for revision allowed
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Forfeiture of Property, Alcoholic Drinks Offences, Revision Jurisdiction
- 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
Patrick Ngutia
Applicant
Republic (Director of Public Prosecutions)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the forfeiture order against the motorcycle was proper when the applicant was not the owner.
- 2 Whether the true owner, Auto Industries Limited, was denied an opportunity to contest the forfeiture.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the forfeiture order against the motorcycle was improper because the applicant was not its owner and the true owner, Auto Industries Limited, was not given an opportunity to contest the forfeiture. Since the state did not object and acknowledged the ownership, the court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction to set aside the forfeiture order and directed the release of the motorcycle to its rightful owner. The decision was grounded on the principle that forfeiture should not prejudice third parties who were not given a hearing.
Court Disposition
application for revision allowed
Orders
- The forfeiture order in respect of motorcycle registration mark and number KMEN 187B is revised.
- The motorcycle is to be released to its owner, Auto Industries Limited.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 31 OF 2019
PATRICK NGUTIA.............................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC......................................DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
JUDGMENT
1. The applicant had been charged in Kakamega CMCCRC No. 1989 of 2019 with transporting chang’aa without a licence contrary to section 7(1) (b), as read with section 62, of the Alcoholic Drinks Act, No. 4 of 2010, Laws of Kenya. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 1, 000. 00 and, in default of paying the fine, to serve thirty (30) days in prison. The motorcycle, which had ferried the chang’aa, registration mark and number KMEN 187B, was to be forfeited to the National Authority for the Campaign against Alcohol and Drug Abuse (NACADA).
2. The application that I am called upon to determine is the Motion dated 16th August 2019. The applicant was the accused person in Kakamega CMCCRC No. 1989 of 2019. He would like a revision on the forfeiture order with respect to the motorcycle, on grounds that it was not his but belonged to another, Auto Industries Limited, who was not given a chance to contest the forfeiture.
3. When the Motion came up for inter parteshearing on 28th October 2019, the state did not object to the revision. Ms. Omondi stated that there was no objection, the applicant was not the owner of the subject motorcycle and that the same could be released to the rightful owner.
4. In view of that, I shall revise the forfeiture order to the extent of directing that motorcycle registration mark and number KMEN 187B be released to its owner, Auto Industries Limited. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED DATED AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA THIS 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE