[2019] KEHC 9092 (KLR)
The court found that the petition raises serious conflicts in the parties' evidence that cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence alone. Accordingly, the matter must proceed to a full hearing with oral evidence to determine the factual disputes regarding the alleged confiscation and destruction of the petitioner's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 9092 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Richard Tangus; Respondent: Ronald Tumba & Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 2 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Preliminary Ruling on Mode of Trial
- Outcome
- No final orders; matter to proceed to hearing on oral evidence.
- Legal Topics
- Right to Property, Unlawful Confiscation, Compensation for Loss
- 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
Richard Tangus
Applicant
Ronald Tumba & Others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Preliminary Ruling on Mode of Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents unlawfully and unconstitutionally confiscated and destroyed the petitioner's betting and gaming machines.
- 2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for alleged loss and damages resulting from the confiscation and destruction of his property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the petition raises serious conflicts in the parties' evidence that cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence alone. Accordingly, the matter must proceed to a full hearing with oral evidence to determine the factual disputes regarding the alleged confiscation and destruction of the petitioner's property. The court therefore declined to make any substantive determination at this stage and directed the parties to set the matter down for hearing.
Court Disposition
No final orders; matter to proceed to hearing on oral evidence.
Orders
- Parties are directed to take a hearing date for the trial of the petition.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAROK
PETITION NO 2 OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 165(3), 2, 10, 19, 20(1), (3), (4), 21 AND 22 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTECTION TO PROPERTY UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA. 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT CO-ORDINATION ACT, ACT NO. 1 OF 2013 PUBLIC OFFICER ETHICS ACT, CAP 183 LAWS OF KENYA, NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE ACT, ACT NO. 11A OF 2011
AND
IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 118, 118A, 119, 120 AND 121 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, CAP 75 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES, 2013
AND
IN THE MATTER OF VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF RICHARD TANGUS
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION
BETWEEN
RICHARD TANGUS..............................PETITIONER
AND
RONALD TUMBA & OTHERS.....RESPONDENTS
RULING
1. Through his petition dated 8/8/2018, the petitioner sought orders for declarations that the respondents confiscated and destroyed his betting and gaming machines, which he alleges was unconstitutional and unlawful. And as a result, he suffered loss and damages in respect of which, he seeks compensation together with the costs of this suit. In support of his petition, the petitioner has deponed to a 26 paragraphs supporting affidavit.
2. The respondents through the first respondent (Ronald Tumba) filed a 22 paragraphs replying affidavit in opposition to the petition. In that affidavit, he has factually denied confiscating the betting and gaming machines of the petitioner.
3. I have perused the petition and the affidavit evidence of the parties. As a result, I find that the petition raises issues that are only capable of being resolved through oral evidence. This is because there is serious conflict in the evidence of the parties. I therefore direct the parties to take a hearing date for the trial of the instant petition.
Ruling dated, signed and delivered in open court at Narok this 21st day of February, 2019 in the absence of both parties and in the presence of the court clerk Kasaso.
J. M. Bwonwonga
Judge
21/2/2019