[2018] KEHC 611 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, as the registered owner of the motor vehicle, was not served with the required notice of forfeiture as mandated by Section 389A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This omission deprived the applicant of the opportunity to be heard and to show cause against the forfeiture of his...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 611 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Applicant: Gerald Njoroge Mburu; Respondent: The Chief Magistrate, Kitale; Respondent: The Kenya Forest Service; Respondent: The Officer in Charge Kitale Police Station; Respondent: The Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 4 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Forfeiture of Property, Notice Requirements, Judicial Review Procedure
- 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
Republic
Applicant
Gerald Njoroge Mburu
Applicant
The Chief Magistrate, Kitale
Respondent
The Kenya Forest Service
Respondent
The Officer in Charge Kitale Police Station
Respondent
The Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant, as the registered owner of the motor vehicle, was entitled to notice of forfeiture under Section 389A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether failure to serve notice of forfeiture on the applicant invalidated the forfeiture proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, as the registered owner of the motor vehicle, was not served with the required notice of forfeiture as mandated by Section 389A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This omission deprived the applicant of the opportunity to be heard and to show cause against the forfeiture of his property. The court held that compliance with statutory notice requirements is mandatory in forfeiture proceedings, and failure to serve such notice on the property owner renders the forfeiture process invalid. Consequently, the application was allowed.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The application is allowed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KITALE
JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 4 OF 2018
REPUBLIC................................................................................................APPLICANT
GERALD NJOROGE MBURU....................................................................EXPARTE
AND
THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE, KITALE......................................1ST RESPONDENT
THE KENYA FOREST SERVICE..............................................2ND RESPONDENT
THE OFFICER IN CHARGE KITALE POLICE STATION...3RD RESPONDENT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.....................................................4TH RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The court has perused the application dated 5/12/2018 by the exparte applicant. The same was not opposed by the Respondents.
2. The proceedings from the lower court shows that the Applicant was not a party though a registered owner of the motor vehicle in question Section 389 A (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code anticipates that the notice of forfeiture ought to be served upon the owner of the property. This shall enable him to show cause why the same should not be forfeited.
3. In light of the above omission the application is hereby allowed with no order as to costs.
Delivered, signed and dated at Kitale this 20th Day of December, 2018.
__________________
H.K. CHEMITEI
JUDGE
20/12/18
In the presence of:
Arunga for the Applicant
Kakoi for the Respondent
Court Assistant – Kirong
Ruling read in open court.