[2008] KEHC 230 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had presented an arguable case that the respondents' decision to bar their licensed vehicles from the Nairobi CBD was unfair, arbitrary, and selectively applied, and may have been made without due process. The court noted the significant inconvenience and hardship caused to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 230 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jane W. Kamau and 36 Others; Respondent: Transport Licensing Board; Respondent: The Commissioner of Police; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Minister for Local Government
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 124 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Leave and Stay Pending Substantive Hearing
- Outcome
- Leave granted to apply for judicial review; leave to operate as stay for 30 days pending hearing.
- Judges
- ARM Visram
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Prohibition, Public Transport Regulation, Due Process, Stay of Decision
- 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
Jane W. Kamau and 36 Others
Applicant
Transport Licensing Board
Respondent
The Commissioner of Police
Respondent
The Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Minister for Local Government
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Leave and Stay Pending Substantive Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have established an arguable case for judicial review against the respondents' decision to bar their vehicles from the CBD.
- 2 Whether leave to apply for orders of certiorari and prohibition should be granted.
- 3 Whether the leave should operate as a stay of the respondents' decision pending hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had presented an arguable case that the respondents' decision to bar their licensed vehicles from the Nairobi CBD was unfair, arbitrary, and selectively applied, and may have been made without due process. The court noted the significant inconvenience and hardship caused to commuters and held that, in the interests of justice, leave to apply for judicial review should be granted. Furthermore, the court exercised its discretion to order that the leave operate as a stay of the impugned decision for 30 days, pending the substantive hearing of the application. The court directed the applicants to file and serve their substantive application within 10 days...
Court Disposition
Leave granted to apply for judicial review; leave to operate as stay for 30 days pending hearing.
Orders
- Leave to apply for orders of certiorari and prohibition is granted.
- Leave shall operate as a stay of the respondents' decision for 30 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Misc. Appli. 124 of 2008
JANE W. KAMAU AND 36 OTHERS …………..…..……….. APPLICANTS
AND
TRANSPORT LICENSING BOARD ……………..……. 1ST RESPONDENT
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE …….……….……. 2ND RESPONDENT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL ……..…………….. 3RD RESPONDENT
MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT …..……...…. 4TH RESPONDENT
RULING
In this Judicial Review application, brought under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and Section 8 (2) of the Law Reform Act, the 37 Applicants before this Court seek leave to apply for Orders of Certiorari and Prohibition to quash the decision of the Respondents to bar their public service vehicles (hereinafter “matatus”) from entering the Central Business District (CBD) of Nairobi. They say they have paid the license fees, and have licenses to operate within the CBD and that their exclusion is unjust and unfair, and contravenes their rights. They argue that the Respondent’s decision is arbitrary, capricious and selectively applied, and pray that they be granted leave, and Order for stay pending the hearing of their application.
Having perused the application, and heard Counsel, I am satisfied that they have presented an arguable case outlining the fact that the Respondent’s decision is unfair, arbitrary, selectively applied and capricious. The decision or directive appears to have been made without following due process, and on the face of it is unjust and ignores the principle of proportionality and fairness. The decision also ignores the huge inconvenience, agony and suffering of the people, the commuters, who are now having to walk long distances to the CBD. There is credible argument before this Court that this decision is ill-advised and ought, for now, to be suspended until this application can be heard interpartes.
Accordingly, I am persuaded to allow this application to be heard during the Court Vacation; and I hereby grant the leavesought and order that such leave do operate as a stay for a limited period of 30 days within which this application is heard. I direct that the Applicants file and serve their substantive application within the next 10 days and be heard interpartes on 24th April, 2008.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 26th day of March, 2008.
ALNASHIR VISRAM
JUDGE