The High Court has ordered the Directorate of Criminal Investigations to release furniture and other valuables it seized from Pride Inn Hotels and Investments Limited last year.
DCI Gigiri had obtained orders of seizure from a Kiambu magistrate following a report from the hotel’s former landlord Brookshill Crescent Investments who accused the hotel chain of theft and malicious damage to property.
However, after the matter was reviewed by Director of Public Prosecutions, he advised that there was no criminal element as the matter was purely a civil dispute.
Brookshill Crescent through its directors AbdulSalam Noorani and Imran Noorani moved to court and obtained a status quo order that the furniture remain at the police station.
However, in a ruling delivered by Justice Alfred Mabeya on March 18, he lifted the orders after the hotel chain presented in court material facts which had not been disclosed by their former landlord.
"In the present case, the court finds that there was grave material non-disclosure by the respondent that the ex parte order which was extended cannot be allowed to stand," Mabeya said.
The judge noted that Brookshill Crescent deliberately abused the court process and procedures by not disclosing all the material facts when it sought ex parte orders to seize the furniture.
The judge wondered why the company through its directors reported the matter at Gigiri police station yet the suit premises was situated in Westlands, Nairobi, saying that it was unclear why the courts in Nairobi were side-stepped.
"None other than the DPP himself has determined that the respondent was out to abuse the police powers. That is why he terminated the investigations and referred the parties to the civil courts," the judge ruled.
The hotel chain in court documents claimed that it had entered a lease agreement for the premises situated in Westlands with the company from 2009 to 2015. After 2015, the lease was renewed for a further five years and three months.
During the second sub-lease, they entered into an agreement where the landlord agreed to renovate the premises and in consideration the hotel was to pay increased rent.
The hotel chain contended that while the landlord paid for renovations, it purchased the furniture and fitting on its own and thus the furniture and fittings could not be considered as part of the renovated premises.
After the expiry of their sub-lease the hotel stated that it handed over the premises to the landlord. However, the landlord made a report at Gigiri police station as a result of which the said furniture were seized.
Edited by Henry Makori
