[2015] KEHC 8284 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant is the registered owner of the motor vehicle in question and that there was no evidence of any criminal charges or ongoing proceedings justifying the continued detention of the vehicle by the police. The respondent failed to provide any reason or legal basis for holding the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 8284 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Inspector General of Police through Divisional Criminal Investigation Officer (DCIO), Ruai Police Station; Applicant: Benjamin Murithi Nyaga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 125 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Mandamus, Prohibition, Police Powers, Property Rights
- 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
Inspector General of Police through Divisional Criminal Investigation Officer (DCIO), Ruai Police Station
Respondent
Benjamin Murithi Nyaga
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the continued detention of the applicant's motor vehicle by the police is lawful.
- 2 Whether an order of mandamus should issue compelling the release of the motor vehicle to the applicant.
- 3 Whether the applicant's right to property has been violated by the respondent's actions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant is the registered owner of the motor vehicle in question and that there was no evidence of any criminal charges or ongoing proceedings justifying the continued detention of the vehicle by the police. The respondent failed to provide any reason or legal basis for holding the vehicle. The court held that the police's actions amounted to an abuse of power and a violation of the applicant's right to property. Accordingly, the court issued an order of mandamus compelling the release of the vehicle to the applicant, subject to the condition that the vehicle is not being held as an exhibit in any criminal proceedings already commenced. The respondent is...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- An order of mandamus is issued compelling the respondent to forthwith release motor vehicle registration number KBZ 882M to the applicant Benjamin Murithi Nyaga, unless the vehicle is being held as an exhibit in any criminal proceedings already commenced in any court.
- The respondent is at liberty to take photographs, prepare reports and retain photocopies of the logbook, road licence and any other document for use in any criminal proceedings that may be commenced in future.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
JUDICIAL REVIEW DIVISION
JR CASE NO. 125 OF 2015
REPUBLIC.................................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE THRO’
DIVISIONAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OFFICER
(DCIO), RUAI POLICE STATION………………………………RESPONDENT
EX-PARTE
BENJAMIN MURITHI NYAGA
JUDGEMENT
Through the notice of motion application dated 5th May, 2015 the ex-parte Applicant, Benjamin Murithi Nyaga prays for orders that:
“1. The Honourable Court be pleased to grant to the Applicant:
AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS compelling the Inspector General of Police through the DCIO Ruai Police Station to release motor vehicle Toyota Fielder registration number KBZ 882M to the Applicant; and
AN ORDER OF PROHIBITION directed at the Inspector General of Police through the DCIO Ruai Police Station prohibiting them from in any way unlawfully or illegally interfering with the Applicant’s enjoyment and ownership of motor vehicle Toyota Fielder registration number KBZ 882M.
2. The Applicant be awarded the costs of this application.”
2. The Inspector General of Police who has been sued through the Divisional Criminal Investigation Officer (DCIO), Ruai Police Station is Respondent.
3. The Applicant’s case is that at all times material to these proceedings he was the registered owner of motor vehicle registration number KBZ 882M Toyota Fielder. On 13th December, 2014 he leased out the said motor vehicle to one Felistus Ndinda Kioko who informed him that she was going to use the vehicle to pick up Catherine Wanjiru who was flying into the country from America. A lease agreement for the period 14th December, 2014 to 23rd December, 2014 was entered into between him and the said Felistus Ndinda Kioko.
4. The Applicant averred that on 20th December, 2014 he informed Felistus that he wanted to inspect the vehicle and she told him that she was going to Carnivore. She later switched off her phone. The Applicant was alarmed and he went to check at Langata Police Station if an accident involving Catherine Wanjiru, Felistus Ndinda Kioko or his motor vehicle had been reported at the station but found that there was no report.
5. Later, the Applicant learned that his motor vehicle has been detained at Ruai Police Station having been sold to one Mr. Ndirangu who had voluntarily driven the motor vehicle to the Police Station on 31st December, 2014.
6. It is the Applicant’s case that the DCIO and the OCS of Ruai Police Station have refused to release the vehicle to him unless he produces a court order compelling them to release the car. The Applicant contends that their decision to hold onto his vehicle is unreasonable, irrational, unfair, illegal and an abuse of power. It also amounts to a violation of his right to own and enjoy property.
7. Despite evidence of service of the application on the Respondent, the Respondent did not file any response to the application. The application is therefore unopposed.
8. A perusal of the application and the supporting documents shows that the Applicant is the registered owner of motor vehicle registration number KBZ 882M registered on 7th July, 2014 through registration certificate K520958W (Original No. 20141921276). The Applicant has also exhibited a car lease agreement dated 14th December, 2014 showing that he had indeed hired his car to one Felistus Ndinda Kioko holder of identity card number 26109784 for ten days from 14th December, 2014 to 23rd December, 2014. He has also exhibited a copy of the national identity card of the said Feslistus Ndinda Kioko.
9. There is no reason given as to why the Respondent has continued to detain the Applicant’s motor vehicle. There is no evidence that the Applicant or anybody else has been charged in Court with any offence in relation to the said motor vehicle. If the police had any evidence against the Applicant they ought to have taken him to Court. To continue detaining his vehicle amounts to abuse of power.
10. In the circumstances of this case, the only remedy available is an order directing the release of the said motor vehicle. An order of mandamus is therefore issued compelling the Respondent to forthwith release motor vehicle registration number KBZ 882M to the Applicant Benjamin Murithi Nyaga. The order will only be implemented if the said motor vehicle is not being held as an exhibit in any criminal proceedings already commenced in any Court. The Respondent is at liberty to take photographs, prepare reports and retain photocopies of the logbook, road licence and any other document for use in any criminal proceedings that may be commenced in future. There is no order as to costs.
Dated, signed & delivered at Nairobi this 20th day of August, 2015
W. KORIR,
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT