Please Wait. Searching ...
|Case Number:||Appeal 03 of 2021|
|Parties:||Migori County Transport Sacco Ltd v National Transport and Safety Authority|
|Date Delivered:||22 Mar 2021|
|Court:||Transport Licensing Appeals Board Tribunal|
|Judge(s):||Dick Waweru Chairman ………………………. Betty Chepng’etich Bii Member ………………………. Moses Parantai Member ……………………….. Aden Noor Member ………………………. Prof. Kiarie Mwaura Member|
|Citation:||Migori County Transport Sacco Ltd v National Transport and Safety Authority  eKLR|
|Case Outcome:||Appeal allowed|
|Disclaimer:||The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information|
TRANSPORT LICENSING APPEALS BOARD
RONGO APPEAL NO. 03 OF 2021
MIGORI COUNTY TRANSPORT SACCO LTD.......................APPELLANT
NATIONAL TRANSPORT AND SAFETY AUTHORITY......RESPONDENT
1. The Appellant is a cooperative society that is registered under the Co-operative Societies Act (Cap 490) and has been licensed by the Respondent Authority to operate public service vehicles.
2. The Respondent, National Transport and Safety Authority, 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.
The Appellant’s Case
4. The case that the Appellants filed at the Transport Licensing Appeals Board arose as a result of the closure of the portal by the Respondent on the basis that they had vehicles in their fleet that had not complied with PSV regulations. The portal was closed in February 2021.
5. The Appellants appeared in court on March 9, 2021 and challenged the closure of their portal on the basis that they were not given a hearing before the closure of the portal. To support its case, the Appellant relied on the evidence of Peter Njaga, a director of the Sacco.
The Respondent’s Case
6. The Respondent stated that the Appellant had not complied with PSV regulation, as all their vehicles were not compliant with the regulations.
7. The Respondent relied on the sworn affidavit of the Director of Licensing, Christopher Wanjau, who confirmed that the Sacco had 50 motor vehicles in its portal out of which only 11 have road service licenses. He also averred that the Sacco had a total of 52 drivers and 67 conductors, but only six drivers and five conductors had PSV badges.
8. It was the Respondent’s case that the Sacco had not fulfilled its legal requirements under the National Transport and Safety Authority (Operation of Public Service Vehicles) Regulations 2014 and, as a result, the ICT system shut down their portal automatically.
8. Following the arguments presented by the parties, the Transport Licensing Appeals Board has isolated the following issues to be the ones requiring a determination:
a. Whether the suspension of the portals of the Saccos was lawful?
Whether the Suspension of the Sacco was lawful?
9. It was the Appellant’s contention that the Sacco was not given a chance to be heard, a fact that was not rebutted.
10. The need to be heard and given prior notice and reasons for an administrative action that affects a person negatively is a fundamental right under Article 47 of the Constitution, which is given effect by the Fair Administrative Action Act 2015. Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act (2015) provides that:
“(2) Every person has the right to be given written reasons for any administrative action that is taken against him. (3) Where an administrative action is likely to adversely affect the rights or fundamental freedoms of any person, the administrator shall give the person affected by the decision: (a) prior and adequate notice of the nature and reasons for the proposed administrative action; (b) an opportunity to be heard and to make representations in that regard; (c) notice of a right to a review or internal appeal against an administrative decision, where applicable.”
11. This position is also supported by the cases of Onyango Oloo v AG (1986-1989) EA 456 and Pashito Holdings Limited and Another v Paul Nderitu Ndungu & 2 Others  eKLR.
12. It follows, therefore, that there was a breach of Article 47.
13. Having considered the facts and the law applicable to this matter, the Transport Licensing Appeals Board makes the following orders THAT:
a. The suspension of the Appellants’ portals was unlawful and is lifted with immediate effect.
b. The Respondent, whether by itself or its representatives, servants or agents, is restrained from suspending the Appellants’ portals or impounding the Appellants’ vehicles on the basis of the unlawful action arising from this suit.
c. The Respondent is at liberty to issue a fresh notice, conduct a hearing, and take administrative action that is lawful.
Delivered, dated, and signed in Nairobi by the Transport Licensing Appeals Board on this 22nd of March, 2021.
Dick Waweru Chairman ……………………….
Betty Chepng’etich Bii Member ……………………….
Moses Parantai Member ………………………..
Aden Noor Member ……………………….
Prof. Kiarie Mwaura Member ……………………….