[2019] KEHC 7740 (KLR)
The court found that the Murang’a Finance Act 2013, which set the parking fee at Kshs 2,500 for 14-seater buses, was duly enacted and gazetted, and its constitutionality had already been upheld in a previous decision. The petitioners did not challenge the constitutionality of the Act itself but only the manner in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 7740 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Francis Manyeki; Applicant: Francis Miano; Applicant: David Mugo; Respondent: The County Government of Murang’a
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Constitutional Petition 42 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Judgment
- Outcome
- petition dismissed
- Judges
- K Kimondo
- Legal Topics
- Fair Administrative Action, Right to Fair Hearing, Statutory Interpretation, Public Participation
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Francis Manyeki
Applicant
Francis Miano
Applicant
David Mugo
Applicant
The County Government of Murang’a
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent's increase of parking fees from Kshs 1,500 to Kshs 2,500 was arbitrary and violated Article 47 of the Constitution.
- 2 Whether the respondent failed to provide fair administrative action as required by the Fair Administrative Action Act.
- 3 Whether the Murang’a Finance Act 2013 provided a valid legal basis for the increased levy.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Murang’a Finance Act 2013, which set the parking fee at Kshs 2,500 for 14-seater buses, was duly enacted and gazetted, and its constitutionality had already been upheld in a previous decision. The petitioners did not challenge the constitutionality of the Act itself but only the manner in which the new levy was implemented. The court held that the claim of abruptness and lack of notice was unfounded, as the rate had been in force since 2014 and was publicly available. The respondent's temporary charging of a lower rate did not create a legal right to that rate, nor did it amount to a denial of fair administrative action. The petitioners failed to prove any...
Court Disposition
petition dismissed
Orders
- The petition dated 11th July 2018 is dismissed.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT MURANG’A
CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 42 OF 2018
FRANCIS MANYEKI..........................................................1ST PETITIONER
FRANCIS MIANO...............................................................2ND PETITIONER
DAVID MUGO....................................................................3RD PETITIIONER
VERSUS
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF MURANG’A...............RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The three petitioners have sued on their own behalf; and, on behalf of the self-help group styled Murang’a Matatu Owners Welfare Association.
2. The petitioners aver that on 11th June 2018 the respondent “abruptly and without notice” increased the monthly parking fees for14-seater buses from Kshs 1,500 to Kshs 2,500. The petitioners had operated on the old stickers since June 2017.
3. The petitioners’ case is that the respondent’s action was arbitrary and capricious. It also ran counter to the principles of good governance and fair administrative action. In a nutshell, the conduct is impugned for violating Article 47 of the Constitution; and, sections 4 and 5 of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
4. The facts are pleaded at length in the petition dated 11th July 2018. There is a deposition of even date sworn by the 1st petitioner.
5. The petitioners crave three main reliefs: Firstly, for a declaration that that the conduct by the respondent is unconstitutional; secondly, for an injunction to restrain the respondent from increasing the levy to Kshs 2,500; and, thirdly, forcosts.
6. The petition is contested. There is a replying affidavit sworn on 11th October 2018 by Jeremiah Mwirigi, the town administrator. He has annexed the Murang’a Finance Act 2013. The Act sets the parking fees at Kshs 2,500. He avers that the constitutionality of the legislation was upheld in an earlier suit, Quarry Owners Association & others v County Government of Murang’a, High Court, Murang’a, Pet. 24 of 2014 [2015] eKLR.
7. The respondent’s case is that the petition is founded on a poor understanding of the statute and should be dismissed with costs.
8. On 25th March 2019, I heard brief arguments from the parties. The petitioners relied on their submissions filed the same day. The respondent relied on older submissions filed on 1st October 2018.
9. Article 47 (1) and (2)of the Constitution provides-
“(1) Every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.
(2) If a right or fundamental freedom of a person has been or is likely to be adversely affected by administrative action, the person has the right to be given written reasons for the action.”
10. The National Assembly enacted the Fair Administrative Action Act to give effect to the constitutional edict.
11. Although a tome of materials have been placed before the court, the petition turns on a very narrow point: the constitutionality of the new levy. Paraphrased, does the Murang’a Finance Act 2013 provide a valid foundation for the impugned levy?
12. For starters, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kamande, freely conceded that he was not challenging the constitutionality of the local statute. The Act was published way back on 12th May 2014. An earlier challenge to its constitutionality was dismissed on 22nd May 2015 by Waweru J in Quarry Owners Association & others v County Government of Murang’a, High Court, Murang’a Pet. 24 of 2014 [2015] eKLR.
13. I have studied page 30 of the Act relating to traffic and parking fees. The rate for a 14-seater bus is expressly set at Kshs 2,500 per month. The Act was gazetted in the special issue of the Gazette of 12th May 2014. It would thus be a misnomer to say that the public was unaware of the Act. The claim that the increase of the levy was abrupt and without notice lacks a factual or legal basis.
14. True, the County continued to charge the petitioners the lower rate of Kshs 1,500 per month since June 2017. The petitioners read some politics in that decision. But I find that conduct estoppel would not override the clear rate provided by the statute. By not challenging the constitutionality of the statute, the petitioners cannot be heard to say that they were denied a fair hearing. The new rate was in the books since the coming into force of the Act on 12th May 2014.
15. He who alleges must prove. The petitioners have failed to prove that the conduct of the respondent violated the Constitution; or, the Fair Administrative Action Act. It must follow as a corollary that the petition fails.
16. The upshot is that the entire petition dated 11th July 2018 is dismissed. In the interests of justice; and, considering the plight of the petitioners, I order that each party shall bear its own costs.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at MURANG’A this 14th day of May 2019.
KANYI KIMONDO
JUDGE
Judgment read in open court in the presence of-
Ms. Musyoka holding brief for Mr. Kamande for the petitioners instructed by Murigi Kamande & Associates Advocates.
Ms. Githinji holding brief for Mr. Kimwere for the respondents instructed by Kimwere Josphat & Company Advocates.
Ms. Dorcas and Ms. Elizabeth, Court Clerks.