[2014] KEHC 1580 (KLR)
The court found that the police had detained the applicant's motor vehicle not for any legitimate criminal investigation, but rather to exert pressure on the applicant to settle a civil dispute unrelated to the vehicle. The complainants in the civil dispute were not claiming the vehicle, and no criminal charges had...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 1580 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Raphael Ochieng Choka; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 178 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Release of Detained Property
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Detention of Property, Release of Exhibits, Constitutional Rights, Police Powers
- 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
Raphael Ochieng Choka
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Release of Detained Property
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the police were justified in detaining the applicant's motor vehicle without charging him with a criminal offence.
- 2 Whether the continued detention of the motor vehicle infringed the applicant's constitutional right to property under Article 40(1) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the police had detained the applicant's motor vehicle not for any legitimate criminal investigation, but rather to exert pressure on the applicant to settle a civil dispute unrelated to the vehicle. The complainants in the civil dispute were not claiming the vehicle, and no criminal charges had been brought against the applicant since the vehicle's detention. The court held that this conduct by the police amounted to an infringement of the applicant's constitutional right to property under Article 40(1) of the Constitution. The court therefore ordered the unconditional release of the motor vehicle to the applicant, noting that the police retained the liberty to bring...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The police are ordered to unconditionally release motor vehicle registration number KAX 642J, Toyota Corolla saloon, to the applicant.
- The police retain liberty to bring any criminal charge against the applicant if evidence arises.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.178 OF 2014
RAPHAEL OCHIENG CHOKA.....................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC................................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant, Raphael Ochieng Choka has moved this court by an application made pursuant to Articles 47 and 48 of the Constitution seeking orders of this court to compel the District Criminal Investigation Officer (DCIO) Industrial Area Police Station to unconditionally release his motor vehicle registration number KAX 642J, a Toyota Corolla saloon. The Applicant states that the police had without any justifiable reason detained his motor vehicle at the said police station. The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of the Applicant. During the hearing of the application, Ms. Aluda for the State opposed the application on the grounds that the police were investigating whether the said motor vehicle had been procured from proceeds of crime. Mr. Mung’au for the Applicant submitted that since the motor vehicle was detained in June 2014, the police had not taken any action to charge the Applicant with any criminal offence.
This court has carefully considered the facts of this case. From the evidence supplied to the court, it was clear that the police had detained the suit motor vehicle with a view to pressurizing the Applicant to reach a settlement in a civil dispute. The civil dispute does not relate to the motor vehicle. The persons who complained to the police are not claiming the motor vehicle. The dispute appears to be in respect of some agreement for the purchase of land. This court is of the view that, prima facie, the Applicant has established that his right to enjoy his property under Article 40(1) of the Constitution has been infringed by the action of the police. The police are ordered to unconditionally release the motor vehicle to the Applicant. If there is any criminal charge to be brought against the Applicant, the police shall be at liberty to bring the same to court. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014.
L. KIMARU
JUDGE