RULING

The Applicant herein filed an Application dated 7^th September 2023 seeking, inter alia, a review of the decision made in Keroka PMCCRCMisc E061/2023 wherein an order releasing Motor Vehicle Registration No. KCY 595K Toyota Voxy to the Respondent was issued. The Applicant contended that the impugned order is likely to prejudice the Interested Parties’ who have a stake in the said motor vehicle.

The Respondent, on the other hand, opposed the application through a Notice of Preliminary Objection in which he listed the following grounds: -

1. The Applicant herein lacks the locus standi to present the Application as there is no criminal matter pending in court as pertaining the subject motor vehicle.
2. Additionally, the Applicant is not a party to the suit at the trial court and in no way aggrieved by the Orders therein.
3. That the Application is a non-starter and its aim is to abuse the court process.
4. The Preliminary Objection was canvassed by way of written submissions which I have considered.
5. The main issue for determination is whether the Preliminary Objection is merited. A preliminary objection was defined in Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Ltd. v West End Distributors Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1969 (1969) EA 696 where it was held that: -

“A preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises from a dear implication out of pleadings, and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. A preliminary objection is in the nature of what used to be called demurrer. It raises a pure point of law, which is argued on the assumption that al/ the facts pleaded are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or of what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion.”

1. The above decision shows that a Preliminary Objection must be based purely on points of law and that the court cannot delve into an exercise of investigating or determining the facts in dispute. In this case, it was not in contention that the suit motor vehicle registration No. KCY 595K was released to the Respondent herein at the time when investigations were still ongoing over the its legal and rightful owner. It was also not in dispute that both the Respondent and the Interested parties claimed a stake in the said motor vehicle.
2. The objection is founded on the Applicant’s locus standi in the suit. In Alfred Njau and Others vs City Council of Nairobi [1983] KLR 625, the court explained the term locus standi and held thus: -

“The term Locus Standi means a right to appear in Court and conversely to say that a person has no Locus Standi means that he has no right to appear or be heard in such and such proceedings.”

(See also BV Narayana Reddy vs. State of Karnataka Air (1985) Kan 99, 106 (The Constitution of India, ARD 226).

1. ><>></><><><>></></><><><>(></></><><><>(></></><><>>>></><><><>></></><><><>></></><><><><><><><><><><><><>></></><><><>></></><><><>></></><><><>></></><><><>></></><><><>></></><><><>></></><><><> ></></></><><><>< >< >></></><><><>></></><><><>></></></></></></></></></></></><><>><>><>><>>> ><>><>></><>,</> ></><><><>“ >></></><><>><>></> ></><><><>“></></><><>>>> >> ></><>><>></><><>>> ></><><></>