[2024] KEHC 10562 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 10562 (KLR)

The court declined to grant the application for release of the motor vehicle because the matter did not meet the threshold for urgency under the Vacation Rules and because the substantive murder trial, in which the vehicle is an exhibit, is pending before another judge of concurrent jurisdiction. The court held that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 10562 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Adhiambo Oloo Olivia; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: Zacharia Okoth Obado; Defendant: Michael Juma Oyamo; Defendant: Casper Ojwang Obiero
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Case 46 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Urgent Application for Release of Property
Outcome
Application declined; matter referred to trial judge.
Judges
AM Muteti
Legal Topics
Exhibits Management, Restitution of Property, Right to Property
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Exhibits Management Restitution of Property Right to Property

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adhiambo Oloo Olivia

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Zacharia Okoth Obado

Defendant

Michael Juma Oyamo

Defendant

Casper Ojwang Obiero

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Case / Ruling on Urgent Application for Release of Property

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should release motor vehicle KCL 481 K to the applicant during the pendency of the murder trial.
  2. 2 Whether the application meets the threshold for hearing under the High Court (Practice and Procedure) Vacation Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the continued detention of the vehicle constitutes a violation of the applicant's right to property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to grant the application for release of the motor vehicle because the matter did not meet the threshold for urgency under the Vacation Rules and because the substantive murder trial, in which the vehicle is an exhibit, is pending before another judge of concurrent jurisdiction. The court held that it would be improper to make orders that could impact a matter still before another judge, and that the applicant should seek redress before the trial judge. The continued detention of the vehicle, though a limitation on the applicant's right to property, is justified for a legitimate purpose under Article 24 of the Constitution, namely the administration of justice in the...

Court Disposition

Application declined; matter referred to trial judge.

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 29th August 2024 is to be placed before the Honourable Lady Justice Githua, who is seized of the murder trial No. 46 of 2018, in the new term.
  • The matter shall be mentioned before the presiding judge of the Criminal Division on 17th September 2024 for further orders.