[2019] KETLABT 82 (KLR)
The Board found that the Appellant was given more than three months and multiple notices to comply with the requirement of having at least 30 serviceable vehicles. The Appellant failed to comply within the stipulated period and did not respond to summons or take adequate steps to meet the regulatory requirements....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KETLABT 82 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Tunyai Matiri Transport Rural Sacco; Respondent: National Transport and Safety Authority
- Court
- Transport Licensing Appeals Board Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Appeal 18 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Public Service Vehicle Licensing, Regulatory Compliance, Deregistration Procedure
- 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
Tunyai Matiri Transport Rural Sacco
Appellant
National Transport and Safety Authority
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether NTSA acted unreasonably by declining to grant the Appellant additional time to comply with licensing conditions.
Ratio Decidendi
The Board found that the Appellant was given more than three months and multiple notices to comply with the requirement of having at least 30 serviceable vehicles. The Appellant failed to comply within the stipulated period and did not respond to summons or take adequate steps to meet the regulatory requirements. The Board held that NTSA acted reasonably and within its statutory mandate by deregistering the Appellant after the lapse of the compliance period. The request for additional time was not justified given the prior warnings and opportunities provided. The proper course for the Appellant is to comply with the licensing conditions and then seek reinstatement.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- NTSA did not act unreasonably in declining to grant additional time to the Appellant.
- The Appellant must comply with licensing conditions and may then apply for reinstatement as a licensed operator.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
TRANSPORT LICENSING APPEALS BOARD AT MERU
CASE NO. 18 OF 2018
TUNYAI MATIRI TRANSPORT RURAL SACCO..................APPELLANT
-VERSUS-
NATIONAL TRANSPORT AND SAFETY AUTHORITY.....RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Introduction
1. The Appellant is a Sacco registered under the Cooperative Societies Act (Cap 490) and it had been licensed by the Respondent Authority to operate public service vehicles.
2. The Respondent, National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA), is established under section 3 of the National Transport and Safety Authority Act No. 33 of 2012 and has the responsibility to: advise and make recommendations to the Cabinet Secretary on matters relating to road transport and safety, implement policies relating road transport and safety; plan, manage and regulate the road transport system; ensure the provision of safe, reliable, and efficient road transport services and to administer the Traffic Act. Ronald Cheruiyot appeared for the Respondent.
The Appellant’s Case
3. The Appellant filed an application at the Transport Licensing Appeals Board (TLAB) on the 9th December 2018 with the complaint that the Respondent had deregistered the company.
4. The Appellant, through its manager, Chabari Titus Kitharari, averred that the Sacco was deregistered on 22nd November 2018 for not having a minimum of 30 serviceable vehicles. He confirmed that they indeed did not have 30 vehicles, but requested for an extra four months to comply with the regulations.
5. On cross examination, the Appellant confirmed that, prior to the deregistration, they had received notices warning them of non-compliance.
The Respondent’s Case
6. It was NTSA’s case that, before deregistration, they had given sufficient notices and warnings to the Appellant for not having the mandatory thirty (30) serviceable Public Service Vehicles as required under section 5 of the PSV Regulations, but they had declined to comply.
7. The first notice for non-compliance was issued on 16th August 2018 and it gave the Appellant fourteen (14) days to comply.
8. The second notice for non-compliance was issued on 13th September 2018 and it summoned the Appellant to appear at NTSA’s headquarters with a view to explaining the non-compliance and showing cause why the Sacco should not be suspended. The Appellant did not honour the summons.
9. NTSA wrote to the Appellant again on 18th October 2018 suspending the operations of the company for thirty (30) days and requiring the company to comply with the regulations within the suspension period.
10. As a result of the failure to comply with the conditions of suspension, NTSA deregistered the Sacco vide letter dated 22nd November 2018. Upon receiving the letter, the Appellant wrote to NTSA on 7th December 2018 and 9th December 2018 requesting for more time to comply with the regulations. The Appellant confirmed that they received all the letters sent by NTSA.
11. Frankline Mureithi Njiru, a compliance officer for NTSA and appearing as a witness, confirmed that the Sacco was deregistered for failure to comply with the regulations.
Determination
12. Following the arguments adduced during trial, the Transport Licensing Appeals Board has isolated the following issue to be the one requiring a determination: whether NTSA acted unreasonably by declining to grant the Appellant additional time to comply with the licensing conditions.
13. The Transport Licensing Appeals Board has considered the fact that the Appellant had a period of more than three (3) months to comply with the regulations. This is because the first notice for non-compliance was issued on 16th August 2018, but the deregistration was done on 22nd November 2018. We are of the view that this time was sufficient to comply with the licensing conditions regarding the acquisition of thirty (30) vehicles.
14. Having considered the facts and the law applicable to this matter, the Transport Licensing Appeals Board hereby finds:
1. THAT NTSA did not act unreasonable by declining to grant the Appellant additional time to comply with the licensing conditions.
2. THAT the Appellant needs to comply with the licensing conditions and then apply for reinstatement as a licensed operator.
Delivered, dated, and signed in Meru by the Transport Licensing Appeals Board on this 22nd day of January 2019.
Dick Waweru Chairman ……………………
Prof. Kiarie Mwaura Member ………………
Moses Parantai Member ……………………