Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Richard Tangus v Ronald Tumba & Others

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAROK PETITION NO 2 OF 2018 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 165(3), 2, 10, 19, 20(1), (3), (4), 21 AND 22 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTECTION TO PROPERTY UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA. 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT CO-ORDINATION ACT, ACT NO. 1 OF 2013 PUBLIC OFFICER ETHICS ACT, CAP 183 LAWS OF KENYA, NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE ACT, ACT NO. 11A OF 2011 AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 118, 118A, 119, 120 AND 121 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, CAP 75 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES, 2013 AND IN THE MATTER OF VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF RICHARD TANGUS AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BETWEEN RICHARD TANGUS..............................PETITIONER AND RONALD TUMBA & OTHERS.....RESPONDENTS RULING 1. Through his petition dated 8/8/2018, the petitioner sought orders for declarations that the respondents confiscated and destroyed his betting and gaming machines, which he alleges was unconstitutional and unlawful. And as a result, he suffered loss and damages in respect of which, he seeks compensation together with the costs of this suit. In support of his petition, the petitioner has deponed to a 26 paragraphs supporting affidavit. 2. The respondents through the first respondent (Ronald Tumba) filed a 22 paragraphs replying affidavit in opposition to the petition. In that affidavit, he has factually denied confiscating the betting and gaming machines of the petitioner. 3. I have perused the petition and the affidavit evidence of the parties. As a result, I find that the petition raises issues that are only capable

page 1 of 2

of being resolved through oral evidence. This is because there is serious conflict in the evidence of the parties. I therefore direct the parties to take a hearing date for the trial of the instant petition. Ruling dated, signed and delivered in open court at Narok this 21st day of February, 2019 in the absence of both parties and in the presence of the court clerk Kasaso. J. M. Bwonwonga Judge 21/2/2019

page 2 of 2

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.