The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision that awarded KSh500,000 to an Embu flour dealer, ruling that the Anti-Counterfeit Authority (ACA) acted within the law when it raided his premises over allegations of counterfeit products.
In a judgement that strengthens the legal threshold for constitutional petitions, the appellate court held that businessman John Kariuki, trading as Khifam Limited, failed to prove that his constitutional rights had been violated during the 2019 enforcement operation.
The decision reverses an earlier High Court ruling that had found ACA liable for violating Kariuki’s rights through what the lower court considered an unlawful arrest and seizure of goods.
Instead, the three-judge bench, consisting of Sankale Ole Kantai, Mumbi Ngugi, and Kathurima M’Inoti, determined that the evidence presented revealed a contrasting narrative.
It concluded Kariuki knew precisely why he had been arrested, had signed an inventory listing the seized goods, and was released on cash bail the very same day.
Business Fallout
The dispute traces its origins to a commercial fallout inside Kenya’s highly competitive flour industry.
Kariuki had been distributing Golden All-Purpose Home Baking Flour, manufactured by Uzuri Foods Limited, before venturing into his own flour business under the Ridhika Ngano Poa brand.
According to court records, he had even applied to register his own trademark before launching the product.
That entrepreneurial move, however, soon collided with allegations of counterfeiting.
Uzuri Foods claimed customers had begun complaining about the quality of Golden flour circulating across the Mt Kenya region.
Its investigations allegedly pointed to Kariuki.
The company accused him of packaging inferior flour using counterfeit Golden-branded bags and logos before reporting the matter to ACA in March 2019.
Acting on that complaint, ACA inspectors descended on Kariuki’s premises in Runyenjes on March 21, 2019.
They seized flour, thousands of packaging materials, business equipment, and documents before escorting him to Runyenjes Police Station.
He was later released on KSh50,000 cash bail pending investigations.
Rights Dispute
Kariuki insisted the raid had little to do with counterfeit goods.
Instead, he argued that the raid aimed to cripple a budding competitor who had dared to challenge his former supplier.
He maintained that some seized packaging had legitimately been supplied by Golden Harvest for repackaging damaged stock, while other products belonged to his own newly established flour brand.
The businessman further argued that officers never explained why they arrested him.
He also complained that the prolonged retention of his goods paralysed his business, deprived him of income, and caused psychological distress because he remained uncertain about possible prosecution.
Those arguments persuaded the High Court in 2020.
Justice Florence Muchemi ruled that ACA had violated Kariuki’s constitutional rights under Articles 29 and 49 by unlawfully arresting him and failing to promptly inform him of the reasons for the arrest.
The court awarded him KSh500,000 in damages alongside legal costs.
Appeal Succeeds
ACA appealed.
Its lawyers argued the High Court overlooked critical evidence demonstrating that Kariuki fully understood why enforcement officers had visited his premises.
The Court of Appeal agreed.
The judges carefully reconstructed the events of that afternoon and found that Kariuki had remained present throughout the inspection.
He watched officers identify suspected counterfeit products.
He signed the official inventory recording every seized item.
His cash bail receipt expressly indicated he faced allegations involving possession of counterfeit goods.
Taken together, the judges concluded those documents made it impossible to sustain the argument that he had been arrested without explanation.
The appellate court also identified what it described as a ‘striking contradiction’ within the High Court judgement itself.
Earlier in its ruling, the High Court had correctly found no evidence that Kariuki had suffered arbitrary detention because he was arrested and released the same day.
Yet, several paragraphs later, the same court proceeded to award damages for violating precisely that constitutional protection.
The Court of Appeal found no legal basis for that dramatic shift.
Higher Threshold
It held that once the High Court had concluded no violation existed, awarding damages became legally unsustainable.
Equally significant was the appellate court’s emphasis on constitutional litigation standards.
The judges stressed that alleging a constitutional violation requires much more than citing constitutional provisions.
A petitioner must clearly identify each violated right and explain precisely how it was infringed.
Upon reviewing Kariuki’s petition, the court found Article 29 appeared only among numerous constitutional provisions listed in the prayers.
There were no detailed pleadings explaining how the alleged arbitrary arrest breached that right.
That omission proved fatal.
Relying on the long-established principles in Anarita Karimi Njeru and Mumo Matemu, the court reaffirmed that constitutional claims must be pleaded with precision before damages can be awarded.
The judges also faulted the High Court for misreading important evidence.
The lower court had suggested Inspector Ibrahim Bulle was absent during the search because another officer did not swear an affidavit.
READ ALSO: High Court Rules on Petition Accusing Faras of Editing Driver’s Remarks Into Company Endorsement
However, the signed inventory clearly identified Bulle as the seizing officer, while his affidavit comprehensively described the operation.
The appellate judges found the High Court had misunderstood the evidentiary record before reaching its conclusions.
The judges ultimately allowed ACA’s appeal, set aside the KSh500,000 award, dismissed Kariuki’s petition in its entirety, and ordered him to pay the costs of both the High Court case and the appeal.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
