Articles
Petition No. 17 of 2015 (Nakuru) Paul Kihara Nduba T/A Shikanisha Shoes Collection vs The AG and ACA
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
PETITION NO. 17 OF 2015
PAUL KIHARA NDUBA T/A SHIKANISHA SHOES COLLECTION ………....….. PETITIONER
VERSUS
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL ………………......................................…..... 1ST RESPONDENT
THE ANTI-COUNTERFEIT AGENCY …….......................................……… 2ND RESPONDENT
Background
The Petitioner carries on business as a general trader and runs a shop by the name ‘Shikanisha Shoe Collection’ which shop is situated along Kenyatta Avenue in Nakuru Town. On 27th March, 2015 the 2nd Respondent’s Inspectors led by one ‘Casper Oluoch’ entered into the Petitioner’s Shop and proceeded to sieze various goods (shoes) worth about Ksh 1.0 million. The Petitioner who was present at the time managed to take photographs of the inspectors as they seized the goods and also signed an inventory detailing the goods taken. The goods seized were itemized in the inventory as follows
- Puma – 4 pieces
- Nike – 25 pieces
- Adidas – 75 pieces
- Jeep – 19 packaging
- 10 trousers
- 5 jackets
- Timberland - 119 pieces
The Petitioner was aggrieved by the actions of the 2nd Respondent which he alleged were illegal for the following reasons:
- He (the petitioner) is only a retailer and is not the manufacturer of the goods in question therefore the 2nd Respondent ought not to have confiscated said goods.
- The 2nd Respondents continues to hold the confiscated goods without charging the Petitioner with any offence in relation thereto
- The 2nd Respondent inspectors ought only to have taken a sample of the alleged counterfeit goods instead of confiscating the whole stock
- There was no lawful and/or justifiable reason for seizure of the goods as there exists no complaint by any person in respect of those goods.
- The unjust detention of the Petitioner’s goods by the 2nd Respondents is causing him suffering and great losses he is unable to realize any profit from said goods and is
therefore unable to pay his suppliers. - The 2nd Respondent have made continuous threats to destroy the seized goods by burning even though no court order exists for such destruction.
Download Full Judgement in PDF (60KB)
