Kenya Revenue Authority v Alnoor Al Mustaqeen General Traders Ltd & 3 others [2014] KECA 220 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that customs officers must release seized goods once the manufacturer confirms their origin, or pay damages for breaching property rights.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the initial detention of the sugar and vehicle was justified under the East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004
The initial detention was lawful, as the alterations in the authorization documents gave the officers reasonable grounds to believe the sugar was unaccustomed goods liable to forfeiture
The Court agreed with the trial court that the authorization documents bore major alterations, including destination, vehicle registration number, driver's name and number of bags. Under Sections 153(1), 213(1), 210 and 2 of the EACCM Act, officers may stop, search, seize and detain goods they have reasonable grounds to believe are unaccustomed or liable to forfeiture. The suspicion of smuggling justified the initial stop and detention pending investigations.
Whether the continued detention of the sugar and vehicle after 20th January 2012 was justified
The continued detention after the 4th respondent's memo of 20th January 2012 confirming the origin of the sugar was unjustified, unreasonable, capricious and arbitrary
The memo of 20th January 2012 from Mumias Sugar's director of sales and distribution confirmed the sugar originated from the company and recommended release, and was brought to the 2nd respondent's attention the same day. The manufacturer's confirmation, corroborated by its letter of 23rd January 2012, was effectively the final result of the investigations. There were no reasonable grounds to expect a different report, so detention beyond that point breached the 1st respondent's right to property.
Whether the award of Kshs. 1,000,000 damages against the appellant, 2nd and 3rd respondents was proper
The award was proper, being anchored in Article 23(3)(e) of the Constitution for the period of unreasonable detention from 21st January to 24th February 2012
Having found the continued detention unconstitutional, the Court held the learned Judge correctly awarded general damages under Article 23(3)(e) of the Constitution, which permits appropriate relief including damages for breach of fundamental rights. The award was confined to general damages and the Court found no basis to disturb it.
Whether the 4th respondent (Mumias Sugar Company) was liable for losses caused by the detention
The 4th respondent was not liable; its reports resulted from laboratory analysis and consultations, and it exonerated itself from subsequent acts and omissions of the 1st and 2nd respondents
The trial court found, and the Court of Appeal agreed, that the 4th respondent's initial and subsequent reports were not motivated by any ulterior motive but by laboratory analysis and consultations. Once it recommended release on 20th January 2012, it had no control over the further acts and omissions of the appellant and 2nd respondent, and the bribery allegations against its officer were not proved.
Whether the damages awarded were inordinately low and whether the costs order was erroneous
The Court declined to interfere, as assessment of damages and awards of costs are discretionary and no misdirection was shown
Relying on Butt v Khan, an appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate or the judge proceeded on wrong principles. Similarly, per Mbogo v Shah, an appellate court should not interfere with a judge's discretion unless the judge misdirected himself or was clearly wrong resulting in injustice. Neither standard was met here.
Legal principles established
#- While customs officers may lawfully seize and detain goods on reasonable suspicion of smuggling, once the owner or manufacturer confirms the origin of the goods and requests release, continued detention beyond a reasonable time becomes unjustified and unconstitutional
- Tortious heads of damages such as loss of user and loss of profit cannot be awarded in a constitutional petition, which is properly confined to damages for breach of fundamental rights
- In a first appeal, the Court of Appeal is duty-bound to re-evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusions while making allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is disallowed
- 2.The cross-appeal is disallowed
- 3.No order as to costs (each party bearing its own costs)
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Meru
- H.C Petition No. 1 of 2012
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal from the High Court (Constitutional Petition), per the Court's appellate jurisdiction; the judgment proceeds as a first appeal on facts and law.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Revenue Authority v Alnoor Al Mustaqeen General Traders Ltd & 3 others [2014] KECA 220 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2014/220/eng@2014-05-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.