[2013] KEHC 6389 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had established ownership of the motor vehicle and that the respondent, despite being given ample opportunity, failed to justify the impounding of the vehicle or the demand for duty. In the absence of any opposition or explanation from the respondent, and upon consideration of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 6389 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samai Singh; Respondent: Kenya Revenue Authority
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Cause 9 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Amended Notice of Motion
- Outcome
- application allowed as prayed with costs
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Release of Detained Property, Import Duty Disputes, Proprietary Rights, Unopposed Application
- 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
Samai Singh
Applicant
Kenya Revenue Authority
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Amended Notice of Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent lawfully detained the applicant's motor vehicle registration number KAU 208P.
- 2 Whether the respondent's demand for payment of duty from the applicant was lawful.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to unconditional release of the detained motor vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had established ownership of the motor vehicle and that the respondent, despite being given ample opportunity, failed to justify the impounding of the vehicle or the demand for duty. In the absence of any opposition or explanation from the respondent, and upon consideration of the applicant's evidence and submissions, the court concluded that the detention of the vehicle was not justified. The application was therefore allowed as prayed, with costs to the applicant.
Court Disposition
application allowed as prayed with costs
Orders
- The respondent shall forthwith and unconditionally release motor vehicle registration number KAU 208P make Mercedes Benz Station Wagon to the applicant.
- The respondent shall pay the costs of this application to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
MISC CAUSE NO. 9 OF 2013
SAMAI SINGH.......................……………..…...................….....APPLICANT
VERSUS
KENYA REVENUE AUTHORITY..........................…..........…RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. In this cause (amended notice of motion dated 6th February 2013) the Applicant seeks the main order that motor vehicle registration number KAU 208P make Mercedes Benz Station Wagon detained by the Respondent be released forthwith and unconditionally to the Applicant. The Applicant has invoked the inherent power of the court.
2. The grounds for the application stated on the face thereof include –
(i) That the Applicant is the registered owner of the motor vehicle.
(ii) That the motor vehicle has been in the country since the year 2005 and has been previously owned by other people before the Applicant bought it.
(iii) That the Respondent impounded the motor vehicle allegedly due to underpayment of duty, and demanded the same from the Applicant.
(iv) That the Respondent’s action is malicious, unlawful and amounts to harassment of the Applicant and interference with his proprietary rights over the motor vehicle.
3. The application is supported by the Applicant’s affidavit. He depones, inter alia, that the motor vehicle is duly registered in his name (a copy of the log/registration book is exhibited); that he purchased the vehicle from one Raman Enterprise Limited; that on 17th October 2012 the Respondent seized the motor vehicle and made a demand for payment of duty; and that the motor vehicle having been imported into the country in 2005, and the same having been owned by other persons previous to the Applicant buying it, the demand for duty by the Respondent was malicious and unlawful.
4. The Respondent was duly served with the application, and on 20th March 2013 it appeared in court by counsel. The Respondent was then accorded 21 days to file and serve its papers in response. This period was further extended on 28th May 2013. Ultimately, by 26th June 2013 when the application was heard the Respondent had not filed any papers in response.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels appearing. Despite being accorded opportunity to do so, the Respondent has not explained why it so belatedly impounded the subject motor vehicle and demanded duty from the Plaintiff after it registered the motor vehicle in his name. The application is thus unopposed.
6. In the event I will allow the application as prayed with costs. It is so ordered.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 11TH DAY OF JULY 2013
H. P. G. WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY OF JULY 2013