SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Republic v Director, Kenya Forest Service Exparte Mantrad Enterprises [2009] KEHC 1887 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 1887 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1887
Citation
[2009] KEHC 1887 (KLR)
Decided
17 September 2009
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureRespondent's Motion for Orders of MandamusCoramGEORGE DULU
Holding

The court declines to issue the order of mandamus requested by the applicant.

Facts

The applicant, Mantrad Enterprises Limited, sought an order of mandamus directing the Director of Kenya Forest Service to release a motor vehicle impounded for carrying illegal timber cargo. The vehicle was impounded on 15th October, 2008.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent, the Director of Kenya Forest Service, acted within its jurisdiction in impounding the vehicle.
  2. Whether the impounding and continued detention of the vehicle were lawful, reasonable, and in good faith.

Reasoning

The court found that the impounding of the vehicle was lawful and reasonable, and that the applicant had not raised a specific complaint against the Attorney-General. The court also noted that the matter was pending in a criminal case, and that the applicant should pursue the matter in the criminal court.

Outcome

The application is dismissed, and the parties are ordered to bear their respective costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Forest Act No. 7 of 2005
  • Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 75)
Cases cited (3)
  • KENYA NATIONAL EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL –VS- REPUBLIC Ex parte Geoffrey Njoroge – Civil Appeal No. 266 of 1996
  • MIRUGI KARIUKI –VS- ATTORNEY GENERAL – Civil Appeal No. 70 of 1991
  • ORELLY –VS- MACKMAN (1982) ALL ER 1124
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case