[2011] KEHC 4252 (KLR)
The court found that the Transport Licensing Board's letter constituted a contemplated administrative action that directly affected the applicant's rights to operate within the Nairobi Central Business District. The applicant was entitled to procedural fairness, including the right to be heard and to receive a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 4252 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenya Bus Service Management Limited; Respondent: Transport Licensing Board; Respondent: Nairobi Area Milimani Traffic HQ Police Station; Respondent: Commissioner of Police; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Director of Motor Vehicle Inspection; Respondent: City Council of Nairobi; Respondent: Permanent Secretary Ministry of Transport
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Case 193 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Substantive Motion
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Orders of certiorari and prohibition granted. Costs to the applicant.
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Prohibition, Licensing Authorities, Procedural Fairness
- 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
Kenya Bus Service Management Limited
Applicant
Transport Licensing Board
Respondent
Nairobi Area Milimani Traffic HQ Police Station
Respondent
Commissioner of Police
Respondent
The Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Director of Motor Vehicle Inspection
Respondent
City Council of Nairobi
Respondent
Permanent Secretary Ministry of Transport
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Substantive Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Transport Licensing Board's letter constituted a decision amenable to judicial review.
- 2 Whether the applicant was accorded procedural fairness before the threatened revocation of its license.
- 3 Whether orders of certiorari and prohibition should issue to quash and restrain the contemplated action by the Board.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Transport Licensing Board's letter constituted a contemplated administrative action that directly affected the applicant's rights to operate within the Nairobi Central Business District. The applicant was entitled to procedural fairness, including the right to be heard and to receive a reasoned response to its explanation. The Board failed to respond to the applicant's explanation or to the subsequent demand for withdrawal of the show cause letter. In the absence of any further action or justification from the Board, the court held that the threatened revocation was procedurally unfair and unlawful. Accordingly, the court granted orders of certiorari to quash the...
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Orders of certiorari and prohibition granted. Costs to the applicant.
Orders
- Order of certiorari issued to quash the contemplated decision of the Transport Licensing Board affecting the applicant.
- Order of prohibition issued restraining the Board from revoking the applicant's license to operate in the Nairobi Central Business District without due process.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
62 paragraphs
1. Judicial Review & Constitutional Division
2. Subject of Main Application:-
Judicial Review Proceedings.
2. 1Leave granted for Judicial Review Proceedings on 22 August 2011 W. Karanja J.
2. 2Leave operates as stay.
2. 3Notice of Motion 24th August 2011
a)The Transport Licensing Board wrote to the transporter indicating the exparte application that unless they rectify conduct of their staff and have clean buses, it was contemplating to remove their license.
b)Notice to Show Cause of 7 days issued on the grounds why their license should be revoked.
c)Exparte application wrote letter of explanation on 5th July 2011
d)No response made
e)Ex-parte applicant wrote letter seeking to have letter withdrawn
f)No response given
3. Application for judicial review proceedings filed.
i)Prohibiting the applicant buses from operating in the city centre.
ii)Certiorari to quash first respondent’s threatened action of removing from operating within the Nairobi Central Business district.
4. Advocates:
i)J H Kinyanjui instructed by M/s J Harrison Kinyanjui & Co Advocates for the ex-parte applicant
ii)B N Asitivah instructed by 6th Respondent
iii)K.O. Onyusio instructed by the Attorney General
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
JUDICIAL REVIEW MISC CIVIL CASE NO. 193 OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEWORDERS OF CERTIORARI & PROHIBITION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE TRAFFIC ACT, CAP 403
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE TRANSPORT LICENSING ACT, CAP 404
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS
BETWEEN
KENYA BUS SERVICEMANAGEMENT LIMITED..................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
TRANSPORT LICENSING BOARD............................................................................. 1ST RESPONDENT
NAIROBI AREA MILIMANITRAFFIC HQ POLICE STATION..................................2ND RESPONDENT
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE.....................................................................................3RD RESPONDENT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL...............................................................................4TH RESPONDENT
DIRECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION.......................................................5TH RESPONDENT
CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI........................................................................................6TH RESPONDENT
AND
THE PERMANENT SECRETARYMINISTRY OF TRANSPORT................. INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
I.BACKGROUND
1. The Judicial Review application before this court was brought before this court as a result of a letter dated 28th June 2011 written by the Transport Licensing Board.
2. The letter addressed to three transport companies including the applicant Kenya Bus Service, that as a result of the board meeting in May 2011, there was indeed disorderly on the road, dirty and unroadworthy vehicles, the drivers, staff held fake licenses. That this must desist and if it is not so done within 7 days, all three companies would be stopped from operating in the Central Business District.
3. It was a letter to show cause why they should not be stopped and the same be given an answer within 7 days.
4. The applicant made reply on 5th July 2011 and explained that they had tried to rectify any anomaly. There was no reply from the board.
5. Their lawyer then wrote a letter of demand dated 25th July 2011 that they withdraw the letter failure to, Judicial Review proceedings would be filed.
6. No reply was forthcoming and Judicial Review proceedings was filed.
II.LEAVE
7. Leave to file the Judicial Review proceedings was granted on 22nd August 2011 (W Karanja J).
8. A Notice of Motion dated 24th August 201 was filed. The respondent failed to attend court but were served.
9. The letter of 28th June 2011 stated that the board was “contemplating revoking its licenses issued to operate in the Central Business District”.
10. No action has been taken further by them on receiving the letter of explanation within seven (7) days.
11. I would hereby agree that there be granted orders of certiorari and prohibition to quash the contemplated decision of the board that applies to the ex-parte applicant only.
12. There will be costs in the case.
DATED THIS 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011 AT NAIROBI
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
Advocates:
i)M/s J Harrison Kinyanjui & Co Advocates for the ex-parte applicant
ii)B N Asitivah instructed by 6th Respondent
iii)K.O. Onyusio instructed by the Attorney General