Republic v Galgalo (Criminal Case E070 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 273 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that only a valuer qualified in movable property can value a vehicle offered as bond security, and summoned the valuer to prove his credentials.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Who is the proper person to prepare a motor vehicle valuation report for the purposes of proving the estimated value of a motor vehicle offered to be used as a court security for the release on bond of an accused person charged with a criminal offence
Key legal issues
#Whether a registered land valuer is competent to prepare a motor vehicle valuation report
A registered valuer may value movable or immovable property in accordance with his academic qualifications and professional skills, but a valuer who specialises in one line (e.g. immovables) may not value the other unless he possesses the necessary qualifications for both
The court construed section 2 of the Valuers Act, holding the word 'or' in 'movable or immovable property' to be disjunctive on a plain reading. Relying on Mutonyi v Republic, Caltex Oil, Linus Msaky and Patrick Wambugu Gitahi, the court held that expertise and qualification are decisive: a valuer specializing in one field cannot undertake valuations in another without the requisite qualifications. Because Mr. Mbugua's qualifications (BA Land Economics, M.I.S.K.) did not disclose whether they covered movables, the court could not confirm his competence to value the motor vehicle.
Whether a motor vehicle assessor licensed under the Insurance Act is the only qualified person to value a motor vehicle
The court did not adopt the DPP's absolute position; it held that qualification, not the professional label, is decisive - a motor assessor is best placed for damage assessment for insurance purposes, but a valuer properly qualified in movables may also value a vehicle
The court examined sections 150, 152 and 184 of the Insurance Act requiring motor assessors to be licensed, and section 2 of the Valuers Act defining a practising valuer as one who values any type of movable or immovable property. Weighing expert-evidence principles, the court concluded that the determinative test is whether the report author possesses the necessary educational and professional qualifications for the valuation undertaken, not merely the title of the profession.
What course should follow where the report does not disclose the valuer's precise qualifications
The court exercised its discretion under section 77(3) of the Evidence Act to summon the expert for examination before deciding the surety application
Noting that the proposed surety had already incurred fees for the report, the court found it unclear whether Mr. Mbugua's competence extended to movables or was limited to immovables. Rather than rejecting the report outright, the court invoked its power under section 77(3) of the Evidence Act to summon the analyst/expert and examine him on the subject matter, deferring the final decision to the outcome of that interview.
Legal principles established
#- A practising valuer may conduct valuation of either movable or immovable property based on his qualifications, but once a valuer specialises in one line, he may only conduct valuations limited to that line unless shown to be qualified for both
- An expert witness must establish that he is specially skilled in his science or art, instruct the Court in the criteria of his science or art, and give evidence of the facts on which his opinion is based
- The plain language rule is the most important rule of statutory interpretation; where the language is clear, other rules need not be examined
Court orders
#- 1.The court exercised its discretion under section 77(3) of the Evidence Act to summon the expert (Mr. Nicholas Mbugua) to be interviewed in court either virtually or physically as soon as is practicable
- 2.The final decision on the surety application shall be made based on the outcome of the interview of the summoned expert
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Criminal proceedings - surety/bond security assessment under the criminal procedure framework; Evidence Act (Cap 80) sections 48 and 77(3)
Relief refused
#Immediate approval of the surety and adoption of the valuation report prepared by Mr. Nicholas Mbugua
The court could not ascertain from the report whether the valuer's qualifications extended to movable property (motor vehicles) or were limited to immovable property
Costs
No costs order made (criminal proceedings; surety application adjourned for interview of the expert)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
a practising valuer may conduct valuation of either movable or immovable property based on his qualifications but the moment a valuer undertakes a specialization in one line, he may only conduct a valuation limited to that line.
the court exercises its discretion under section 77(3) of the Evidence Act to summon the said expert to be interviewed in court either virtually or physically as the circumstances will permit as soon as is practicable.
The final decision shall then be made based on the outcome of the interview of the summoned expert.
as bare minimum the valuer must possess the necessary educational and professional qualifications.
Expert evidence is evidence given by a person skilled and experienced in some professional or special sphere of knowledge of the conclusions he has reached on the basis of his knowledge, from facts reported to him or discovered by him by tests, measurements and the like.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment's paragraph numbering restarts/errors mid-judgment (jumps from '18.' to '19.' then later reverts to '12.' within the quoted Macharia v Kiruthi extract)
Case number of the criminal matter is not stated in the judgment text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Galgalo (Criminal Case E070 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 273 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/273/eng@2025-11-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.