https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10303

Kuti v National Transport & Safety Authority & another; Abdi (Interested Party) (Miscellaneous Application (OS) E001 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 10303 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10303 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Isiolo Miscellaneous Application (OS) E001 of 2026 SC Chirchir, J July 9, 2026 Between Mohamed Abdi Kuti Applicant and National Transport & Safety Authority Respondent and Jaro Mohamed ABdi Interested Party and Jaro Mohamed Abdi Interested Party Ruling 1.The Applicant herein moved this court by way of an Originating Summons dated 8th January 2026 brought under Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya, Section 9 of the Traffic Act, and various provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules. It seeks orders as follows:a.Spentb.That pending the hearing and determination of the application interpartes this honourable court be pleased to issue a vesting order to compel the Director of the National Transport & Safety Authority (NTSA) to transfer Motor Vehicles Registration No. KCB 526D and KCG 124B to the Applicant.c.That pending the hearing and determinations of this Application interpartes , the Respondent be compelled to issue duplicate logbooks for each of the two vehicles to effectively vest ownership in the Applicant, pending the final determination of the matter.d.That the costs of the application be in the cause. 2.The Application is supported by the grounds set out on the face of the Summons and the Supporting Affidavit of Mohamed Abdi Kuti, the Applicant. 3.The Applicant’s case is that he is the legal owner of the subject motor vehicles, which he initially caused to be registered under his company names. 4.He deposes that he entered into an agreement with the Jaro Mohamed Abdi, (Interested Party) to transfer the said vehicles to the Interested Party’s companies that is Sine Enterprise Ltd and Samedi Ltd for the limited purpose of fulfilling a contract for the supply and delivery of items to the Kenya Medical Supplies Authority (KEMSA). It is further stated that it was a term of the Agreement that upon conclusion of the KEMSA contract, ownership of the vehicles would revert to the Applicant. 5.The Applicant contends that despite the KEMSA contract having ended, the Interested Party has remained adamant, and has declined to facilitate the transfer of the vehicles back to him. Thus, he wants the respondent to be compelled to register the subject vehicles in his names. The Respondent’s Case 6.The Respondent, despite being served with the Originating Summons and the Supporting Affidavit, did not file any grounds of opposition or a replying affidavit to contest the Applicant's prayers for a vesting order and the issuance of duplicate logbooks The Interested Party’s Case 7.In response to the Originating Summons, the Interested Party filed a Replying Affidavit dated 8th January 2026. His position in this matter is notably concise; he deposes at paragraph 2 of the said affidavit that: “THAT I do not oppose the Applicant’s Application dated 8th January, 2026”. Analysis and determination 8.Based on the pleadings, the affidavits, and the annexures annexed thereto, I find that the following are issues that arise for determination:a.Whether the originating summons is competent.b.Whether the Applicant is the rightful owner of Motor Vehicles KCB 526D and KCG 124B.c.Whether this Court should grant the vesting orders and consequential directions sought. Whether the Originating Summons is competent. 9.I have carefully considered the summons. Although the Applicant purports to seek temporary orders pending the hearing of the Application interpartes (prayer 2 and 3) the orders being sought are final. The Applicant is simply seeking that the court issues a vesting order and the Director, NTSA be compelled to act on the said order by transferring the subject vehicles to him and issuance of the logbooks in his name . Those are the two substantive prayers in the summons. 10.It follows that once the above orders are granted that will be the end of the matter. The suit or in this case the Originating summons will have been disposed of. 11.Looked at it differently, the Applicant has sought final orders dressed as temporary orders, and instructively, in the originating summons, as opposed to a Notice of Motion. Once the summons are disposed of, what then will be pending so as to justify the granting of the “temporary” orders at this interim stage? 12.Further the respondent is a statutory body with the responsibility of carrying out statutory duties. If the Applicant’s complaint against the respondent is a failure to perform a statutory duty then the Applicant ought to move the court appropriately, but certainly not in the manner it has done. 13.I have seen a replying Affidavit purportedly sworn by the interested party, curiously sworn on the same date as the Application. According to the Affidavit of service sworn by the Applicant’s counsel on 11th February 2026, he effected service on the interested party on 10th February 2026. It raises the question as to how the interested party had already sworn an Affidavit on 8th February 2026 , yet he had not been served with the court documents. 14.Another anomaly the court has observed is that the interested party’s affidavit is filed through the e- filing Account of Ombiro Tolert & Company Advocates, the Applicant’s counsel herein. There is no evidence that the Applicant’s counsel was also representing the interested party. 15.The above anomalies bring into doubt the authenticity of the Replying Affidavit, and even if this Application was to be decided on merit the court would be hesitant to rely on it. The Applicant is represented, and therefore there is no excuse for the kind of approach the Applicant has opted to move the court. 16.The manner in which the Applicant has moved the court, the prayers sought as well as the filing of the interested party’s documents by the Applicant’s counsel, is rather, in my assessment a case of mischief, rather ordinary procedural mishaps of ever day practice of law. 17.Nevertheless, the orders sought, as drafted, are incapable of being granted. The originating Summons is incompetent. It is hereby struck off, with no orders as to costs. DATED , SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ISIOLO THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 2026.S. CHIRCHIRJUDGE.In the presence of :Baraka Huka – Court Assistant.