A KSh4.47 million cannabis case has taken a fresh turn after the High Court blocked the release of a truck and container linked to the alleged trafficking operation.
The High Court has overturned an order releasing a truck and container linked to a KSh4.47 million cannabis case.
Justice Francis Kyambia set aside the release orders issued by a Kikuyu magistrate.
The judge found that the prosecution had been denied an opportunity to properly oppose their release.
He also found that the disputed property had never been produced before court as exhibits.
The decision has effectively returned the truck and container to the centre of the criminal proceedings.
It also highlights the difficult balance between property rights and preservation of evidence.
Drug Haul
The case began when Godfrey Mwakasungu Joel appeared before Kikuyu Magistrate’s Court.
He was arraigned on April 23, 2026, over alleged trafficking of cannabis.
The prosecution valued the narcotics at approximately KSh4.47 million.
Police allegedly intercepted the consignment along the Naivasha-Nairobi Highway.
Contemporary reporting said officers recovered four sacks containing suspected cannabis from a trailer.
The prosecution subsequently linked the alleged operation to a specific container.
It also linked the operation to Scania Premium truck registration KCK 848K.
The two items became important because investigators regarded them as potential prosecution exhibits.
The prosecution further warned that both could eventually face forfeiture under narcotics legislation.
That prospect would later become central to the High Court’s reasoning.
Tahmeed Transporters Limited, however, wanted the property released.
The company said continued detention was causing it financial losses.
It also insisted that it was neither accused nor a suspect in the criminal case.
Tahmeed said the truck belonged to the company and deserved protection as private property.
It further undertook to produce the property whenever investigators or the court required it.
Orders Overturned
The dispute reached a turning point on July 15, 2026.
Senior Principal Magistrate Kenneth Cheruiyot ordered the release of the disputed property.
The Director of Public Prosecutions immediately challenged that decision before the High Court.
The DPP argued that the magistrate had acted beyond his jurisdiction.
Its position was that property intended as evidence could not simply leave custody.
The prosecution also warned that release could undermine its case during trial.
It argued that the truck and container could demonstrate how trafficking allegedly occurred.
Their physical availability could therefore become crucial when witnesses eventually testify.
But there was another problem that proved even more damaging.
The prosecution said it had opposed the release application but was not properly heard.
The High Court examined the magistrate’s ruling and found support for that complaint.
Justice Kyambia noted that the ruling did not show prosecution participation.
He also found that the magistrate appeared not to consider an affidavit filed by prosecutors.
That affidavit had been sworn on May 5, 2026.
The omission, the judge held, was not a minor procedural defect.
Instead, it meant that the prosecution had effectively been “condemned unheard”.
That finding opened the door for the High Court’s intervention.
Evidence preserved
The judge then confronted the more fundamental question surrounding the disputed property.
Could the magistrate release the truck and container before their production as exhibits?
The High Court answered the question through existing criminal procedure principles.
Justice Kyambia acknowledged that courts can restore property under Section 177.
However, that power must be exercised within the circumstances of each criminal case.
Evidence expected to support a prosecution must also remain properly preserved.
That responsibility initially rests with investigators handling the criminal case.
Here, the container and truck had not been presented before the magistrate.
Justice Kyambia relied on Elijah Nyakebondo Onsongo v Republic.
The cited authority established that courts cannot release property earmarked as exhibits prematurely.
The High Court consequently found the timing of the magistrate’s order legally problematic.
The prosecution had also relied upon several other authorities.
These included Republic v Everlyne Wamuyu Ngumo and Republic v Cape Van International Ltd.
The cases were cited for the principle that exhibits should remain available during criminal proceedings.
The prosecution also invoked Jeremiah Kobia Munoro v Republic.
That case concerned whether property held by police was connected to an offence.
The answer, the prosecution argued, could only emerge after evidence was taken.
Forfeiture risk
The narcotics legislation gave the dispute an additional dimension.
Section 75 requires seized property to be safely preserved after seizure.
The provision specifically covers vehicles and other forms of conveyance.
Section 78 goes further by permitting forfeiture following conviction.
That means property allegedly connected with narcotics trafficking can face consequences beyond detention.
The High Court therefore treated preservation as more than an administrative concern.
It was potentially necessary to protect the integrity of the eventual trial.
Justice Kyambia also cited Simon Okoth Odhiambo v Republic.
That authority emphasised preserving exhibits until criminal proceedings and any resulting appeal are concluded.
Tahmeed’s property-rights argument nevertheless remained significant.
The company maintained that it was suffering financial losses through continued detention.
It also argued that photographing the property could preserve its evidential value.
But the High Court found that photographs did not resolve the underlying legal problem.
The disputed property had not first been produced as exhibits.
The prosecution had also not received the hearing that procedural fairness required.
Those two findings ultimately proved decisive.
Justice Kyambia declared the DPP’s revision application meritorious.
He then set aside the July 15 orders “in their entirety”.
The decision does not determine whether Joel is guilty of trafficking cannabis.
That question remains for the trial court after evidence is heard.
READ ALSO: Royal Liner Passenger Wins KSh703,250 After Bus Door Crushes Finger
Instead, the ruling determines how potentially important property should be treated meanwhile.
For prosecutors, it reinforces the importance of preserving physical evidence.
For property owners, it illustrates the risks surrounding assets seized during criminal investigations.
And for magistrates, it underscores the need to hear parties before making consequential release orders.
The criminal case against Joel therefore continues, with the disputed property still within its evidential shadow.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
