Please Wait. Searching ...
Kihara v National Transport and Safety Authority (Tribunal Case 022 of 2022) [2023] KETLABT 177 (KLR) (28 March 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation:
[2023] KETLABT 177 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Tribunal Case 022 of 2022
Joseph Mcdonald, Ag. Chair, Maryan Hajir, Waithira Muiruri & James Ngomeli, Members
March 28, 2023
Between
David Gateri Kihara
Appellant
and
National Transport and Safety Authority
Respondent
Judgment
Introduction
1.The Appellant is a Kenyan National resident of Nanyuki, Nanyuki County. He holds a smart driving license issued by the Respondent and has been driving under the license for the last 19 years.
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 to 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
3.The appellant filed the case on June 15, 2022 because the Respondent Authority had failed to grant him a Class A in his smart driving license. As a result, he claimed to have suffered economically because he could not engage in meaningful employment as a driver.
4.The appellant claims that he got his PSV Badge in 2011, however, in 2014, he left the road because of a road accident he had.
5.The appellant claims that when he wanted to renew his PSV badge again, he realized Class A was not in the system, he paid for a Class A receipt and still couldn't get it in the system.
6.The appellant claims that NTSA has asked him to return to school to get his Class A in his smart driving license.
7.The appellant claims he paid for the Class A, has a receipt, and still, it isn’t in the systemRespondent’s Case
8.The Respondent NTSA did not have an objection to the Appellant’s application. She agrees that she stands guided by the court.
9.The Respondent agrees to reinstate Class A for the appellant
Determination
10.Following the arguments made and the evidence adduced by the parties before the Transport Licensing Appeals Board during the trial, the Board has extrapolated the following issue to determine:
11.Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 posits that 'Every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.' Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 equally reiterates that 'Every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.' The decision by the National Transport and Safety Authority that the appellant should not be issued with a Class A badge because it was initially there is not fair.
Order
12.Having considered the facts and the law applicable to this case, the Transport Licensing Appeals Board hereby makes the following Orders:a.That the Respondent Authority to reinstate Class A for the appellant within fourteen (14) days of this Order.b.That every party should bear its own cost.
DELIVERED, DATED, AND SIGNED IN NAIROBI BY THE TRANSPORT LICENSING APPEALS BOARD ON THIS 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2023. JOSEPH MCDONALDAG.CHAIRMAN………………………MARYAN HAJIRMEMBER....................................WAITHIRA MUIRURIMEMBER....................................JAMES NGOMELIMEMBER
