Akitch Okola v Inspect General of Police Francis Kimaiyo [2014] KEHC 5162 (KLR) | Judicial Review | Esheria

Akitch Okola v Inspect General of Police Francis Kimaiyo [2014] KEHC 5162 (KLR)

Full Case Text

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI

MILIMANI LAW COURTS

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL DIVISION

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 183 OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 8 & 9OF THE LAW REFORM ACT  CAP 26

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 53 OF THE CIVIL PROCEURE RULES, 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE TRAFFIC ACT, CAP 403 OF THE LAW OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTTER OF THE TRAFFIC RULES, 1953

BETWEEN

AKITCH OKOLA....................................................................................APPLICANT

AND

THE INSPECT GENERAL OF POLICE FRANCIS KIMAIYO……..RESPONDENT

RULING

I have listened to learned counsel for the Applicant and I have perused the application dated 16th May 2014.

The Applicant alleges that the decision by the Respondent to bar private vehicles from having tinted windows is not supported by the law and hence amounts to an amendment of the Traffic Rules, a power which the Respondent does not have.

That issue in my view establishes a prima facie case which warrants the grant of leave sought.

Accordingly, I grant leave in terms of prayers 2(a) and 2(b) of the Chambers Summons dated 16th May 2014 and direct that the substantive Motion be filed and served within 3 days.

The applicant also seeks a direction that the grant of leave, do operate as a stay of the said directive. Whereas the Respondent may well show at the hearing that the said directive is well intended the fact that his powers to issue the same are under challenge ought to be investigated. Since it is contended that so far the said directive is only being used to harass motorists, I am satisfied that the same ought to be stayed for the limited period of hearing and determining the Notice of Motion.

Accordingly I direct that the grant of leave shall operate as a stay of the said directive pending the hearing and determination of the substantive Motion or until further orders of the Court.

However as it is admitted that the said directive is only unlawful in so far as it relates to private vehicles, this order will not apply to public service vehicles.

Directions on 29th May, 2014. Costs in the cause.

Dated at Nairobi this 20th day of May 2014

G V ODUNGA

JUDGE

Delivered in the presence of:

Mr Change for the Applicant

Cc Kevin