[2025] KEMC 65 (KLR)
The court found that it lacks jurisdiction to order the release of the motor vehicle because it was not produced before the court as an exhibit. The court emphasized that for property to be restored under section 177(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, it must be properly identified and adduced in evidence. Since the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEMC 65 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Joseph Njoroge
- Court
- Magistrate's Court
- Court Station
- Nakuru Law Courts
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E2521 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Application for Release of Property and Final Disposition
- Outcome
- application dismissed; case closed
- Judges
- PA Ndege
- Legal Topics
- Forfeiture of Property, Release of Exhibits, Jurisdiction of Court, Criminal 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
Joseph Njoroge
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Application for Release of Property and Final Disposition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to order the release of a motor vehicle not produced as an exhibit in a criminal trial.
- 2 Whether the accused is entitled to restoration of the vehicle under section 177(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 3 Whether the fine sentence imposed is sufficient and whether forfeiture of the vehicle is warranted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that it lacks jurisdiction to order the release of the motor vehicle because it was not produced before the court as an exhibit. The court emphasized that for property to be restored under section 177(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, it must be properly identified and adduced in evidence. Since the vehicle was not presented in court, the court cannot make an order for its release. The fine sentence imposed on the accused is deemed sufficient, and no forfeiture of the vehicle is warranted. The application for release of the vehicle is dismissed, and the matter is marked as closed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed; case closed
Orders
- Application for release of the vehicle is dismissed.
- Accused person to pay the fine as ordered or serve default sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Republic v Njoroge (Criminal Case E2521 of 2024) [2025] KEMC 65 (KLR) (2 January 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEMC 65 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Nakuru Law Courts
Criminal Case E2521 of 2024
PA Ndege, SPM
January 2, 2025
Between
Republic
Prosecution
and
Joseph Njoroge
Accused
Ruling
1. I have gone through the copy of the log book provided. I do hereby find that the accused person herein is not the owner of the vehicle herein. I thus do hereby exercise my discretion and find that the fine sentence imposed herein is sufficient and therefore decline to forfeit the vehicle herein.
2. The vehicle is however not under the custody of court at the moment I am aware that a court has jurisdiction to restore property to an individual it believes to be entitled to it, vide section 177 (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the question begging would be, under what circumstances the property should be released? Procedurally, for an exhibit to form part of evidence, it has to be presented for purposes of identification so that the court inspects it prior to be admitted or not depending on its legality. Prior to presentation in court, all evidence to be used during trial must be preserved. This duty that is bestowed upon the investigator of a case is for the purpose of due process and fair trial. Evidence herein is clear that if motor vehicle herein was detained following investigation carried out. I am bound by the decision in the case of Elijah Nyakebondo v Republic (2017) eKLR and Republic v Everline Wamuyu Nguro (2016) eKLR where it was held that until property or properties are produced before subordinate courts as exhibits, the court will not have jurisdiction to order release of the same.
3. Thus a motor vehicle that has been seized and is not presented before court, such as the instant case, cannot be restored to the lawful owner by an order of this court unless the vehicle is identified, adduced in evidence and following discharge of proof and the relevant law in question. A court of law would not be expected to pry into the prosecution’s case unless the same is legally and or procedurally presented within the confines of the law.
4. I thus hereby lacks the jurisdiction or power or legal mandate to order the release of the vehicle herein to the applicant in the miscellaneous cause herein and I do therefore hereby dismiss the application herein.
5. Accused person herein to pay the fine as ordered or serve a default sentence as no other sentence is pending. Both causes herein are therefore marked as closed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025. HON. A. NDEGESENIOR PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATEIn the presence ofCourt AssistantN/A for prosecutionN/A for applicantAccused person presentHON. A. NDEGESENIOR PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE2NDJANUARY 2025