The applicants seek the Court's revision of the ruling by the trial Court by which the applicants were found to have a case to answer and thus put on their defences. The charge facing the accused persons was that of trafficking in narcotic drugs contrary to s 4(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Control Act 1994. The particulars of the charge were that the accused were found trafficking by conveying narcotics in the cargo deck of the ship Amin Darya, also known as the Al Noor. The contention by the applicants is that, as the narcotics were found in the cargo deck of a foreign vessel, they cannot be deemed to have been found in Kenya. Therefore, under s 6 of the Act, the offence was committed outside Kenya and the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the charge. They relied on art 92 of UNCLOS for the proposition that the exclusive jurisdiction of any offence committed in a vessel is that of the flag State - in this case, the Islamic Republic of Iraq.

Held: Application for review dismissed.

The main issue for determination is whether the Kenyan Courts have jurisdiction over criminal offences committed outside its borders, including on foreign registered vessels. The applicants argued that arts 27, 89, 92 and 108 of UNCLOS restricted and outlawed any enforcement of Kenyan law outside the territory of Kenya. The respondent submitted that the subject ship was stateless for flying no flag when intercepted by Kenyan Naval officers.

Counsel did not refer the Court to art 28 [sic: art 27] of UNCLOS​. In this case, the Kenyan authorities arrested the applicants, among others, and on the material presented and admitted by counsel in submissions, while aboard a vessel on whose cargo deck there was a large haul of narcotic drugs. In doing so, Kenya was merely executing its duty to the community of nations as a coastal State to prevent passage of the vessel with its contraband cargo in terms of art 28 [sic: art 27] of UNCLOS.​