Republic v Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure Housing and Urban Development & National Transport & Safety Authority Ex parte Kenya National Union of Co-operatives Staff & Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission [2017] KEHC 7773 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW  DIVISION

MISC. APPLICATION NO.  485 2016

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION  BY KENYA NATIONAL  UNION  OF CO-OPERATIVES

STAFF FOR  JUDICIAL REVIEW  ORDERS OF CERTIORARI  AND  PROHIBITION AGAINST

THE ENACTMENT OF THE TRAFFIC(MINOR  OFFENCES) RULES 2016  BY THE CABINET

SECRETARY  IN-CHARGE  OF TRANSPORT, INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSING  AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT; AND THE  NATIONAL  TRANSPORT   & SAFETY  AUTHORITY

AND

BETWEEN

REPUBLIC..........................................................................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE CABINET SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT, INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT...........................................1ST RESPONDENT

THE NATIONAL TRANSPORT & SAFETY AUTHORITY..................2ND RESPONDENT

AND

KENYA NATIONAL UNION OF CO-OPERATIVES STAFF.........EX PARTE APPLICANT

ETHICS AND ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION...INTENDED INTERESTED PARTY

RULING

1. By an  application dated 13th January 2012, the  Ethics  and Anti Corruption Commission ( EACC) seeks  from the court  orders that it be  enjoined to these proceedings as an interested  party  and that it be served with all the pleadings  filed in the proceedings.

2. The application  is predicated on the 7 grounds on the face of the notice of motion and supported by an affidavit sworn by  Michael Mubea, the Deputy Secretary/Chief  Executive Officer in charge of Technical Services at the Ethics  and Anti Corruption  Commission.

3. According  to the deponent, the Commission carried out  a study in the problem of  corruption  on Kenyan Roads  which led to  the enactment of the new impugned Traffic (Minor Offences) Rules  2016 and  therefore  it is desirous of being enjoined into these proceedings as the outcome thereof may impact  negatively  on the fight against  corruption by traffic offenders.

4. That as one  of the core  mandates  of the Commission is to prevent  corruption, it carried out a study which established that  traffic police officers  were extorting bribes from traffic offenders  due to  lengthy criminal  process and  found that  there  was a weak legal  and  regulatory  framework and  that the  lengthy criminal process that  criminal  offenders were subjected  to led  to high rates of corruption.  That  during the study, police  corruption  was found  to be the  highest at 36% amongst  public institutions and  one of the  recommendations after the study was that new traffic regulations to enhance the speedy dissemination of justice, improve transparency and  accountability of the traffic  police be made.

5. That consequently, the new traffic rules were enacted following consultations with various stakeholders and  in compliance  with the constitutional requirement  for  public participation for  six months  under the National  Council for Administration of  Justice ( NCAJ) whose membership is the judiciary, the National Police Service, National Transport Safety Authority (NTSA), Kenya Association of Motorists, among  others.

6. That transactions involving corruption on the Kenyan Roads through MPESA amounted to shs 18,363,759, according to the investigations  and  analysis  of 28 police officers  involved  in corruption in Mariakani and  Mlolongo weighbridges within a period of one year.

7. That other jurisdictions like Ohio State in the United States where offenders pay fines on the spot for the offence committed have low corruption rates.

8. That therefore the Commission believes that the impugned Traffic (Minor Offences) Rules, 2016 will deal with the vice of corruption among others through the systemized method of paying cash bails, bonds and  fines directly  to the Government  through MPESA as it provides for accountability, a value underscored  by  Article 10 of the Constitution.

9. That this is public litigation as matters of corruption affect each and every citizen and the county’s economy.

10. That the commission being an investigative agency that is mandated with prevention and the investigative mandate on corruption matters which the impugned Traffic Rules are meant to address within the traffic sector, it is prudent  for the Commission  to be joined  and allowed to participate  in these  proceedings.

11. The exparte applicant  opposed the application  by the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission through a replying affidavit  sworn  by Honourable  Justus  Allo Ogeka  the  General  Secretary  of the exparte applicant, on 20th  January  2017, contending  that as  far as he was concerned, the  National Council on administration of justice  chaired by  the Chief Justice  had a Special  Working Group Committee which drafted  guidelines  that would help  streamline  the traffic sector and that  on  2nd June  2015  the Chief Justice  and  Inspector General of Police issued traffic   guidelines  containing  a raft of new directions, in alia, that the  traffic courts  shall process the payment  of  traffic  fines  in open court.

12. That therefore it is not true as deponed by Michael Mubea in his paragraph 7 of the affidavit, that the impugned Traffic Rules were deliberated upon by the National Council for Administration of Justice.  To the contrary, that the impugned Rules are a complete departure from the said noble and salutary guidelines propounded by the National Council for   Administration of Justice.  That even  the Ohio Traffic Rules  as annexed mandatorily  provide for  a court sanctioned  process in dealing  with  traffic offenders  as opposed  to the impugned Rules  that seek  to deny  alleged  traffic  offenders a chance  to have their day in court.

13. That the interested party should not support Rules which promote non- accountability, corruption by the police on the roads; and are openly an affront to the Rule of Law.

14. That  there is nothing special in the interest  of the intended interested  party  to warrant  their joinder  to these  proceedings  as  their interests can adequately be addressed  by the Cabinet  Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development  as the  maker of the impugned  Rules, and the National Transport & Safety Authority that implements  policies   relating  to road transport and safety who are already parties to these proceedings.  That  where  a party’s  interests  are already catered  for by another person already a party to Judicial Review  proceedings, there  is no need  to join such  a party.

15. That the joinder of the Ethics and Anti Corruption  Commission will open  a flood  gate  of unnecessary  litigation and  clog or  delay  the matter, contrary to the overriding  objectives of  the court  and the public interest  in expeditious  performance  of administrative  functions.

16. That  joinder of  the Ethics and Anti Corruption  Commission will  unnecessarily  escalate  costs of  litigating  the matter to  the utter  detriment  of the exparte  applicant.

17. That the  proposed  interested  party  has deliberately sought  to mislead  the court  on the implication  of the impugned Rules  vis avis  the Directions  on traffic  cases  by the National  Council for  Administration of  Justice and  therefore  the grounds  for the proposed  joinder are completely  misplaced.

18. That no substantial benefit will be served by the proposed joinder of Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission as it will only delay expeditious disposal of this suit.

19. That the  proposed  interested party  has  annexed  to its affidavit   classified documents  and  deliberately distorted  facts  based on falsehoods  hence  the  application should be  dismissed  with costs  as no prejudice will be suffered  by Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission if it is  not joined  to the cause.

20. The  parties advocates  canvassed the application orally  on 24th January 2017 with Mrs Odipo counsel for the proposed  interested  party submitting, relying  wholly  on the grounds, the supporting  affidavit   and  a bundle of  authorities  filed which  I need not  reproduce  herein as the submissions  are a replica  of the grounds and the supporting affidavit.

21. Mrs Odipo maintained that the joinder will enable the court arrive at a fair decision.  She relied on petition No. 416/2008 Mastermind  Tobacco Company Ltd  Vs Attorney General  where Okwengu J ( as she then  was) allowed  joinder  of  an interested  party  on the ground  that  the orders  sought by the petitioner  may be adverse  to the  interest  of the intended  parties  who appear  to have been   at the  fore front  in the legislation of the Tobacco control Act.

22. Further reliance  was placed  on JR  365 Republic Vs  Kenya  Airports  Authority Exparte Transglobal – Cargo  Centre Limited of  2014 where  G.V. Odunga  J considered an oral  application for joinder and  allowed it on the ground that to hear  and  determine the  proceedings  without bringing  in the parties  when allegations  are made  that they are  beneficiaries   of the respondent’s  alleged  differential treatment   would amount  to be abetting  the very conduct   which the  applicant   complained of- selective treatment of persons  without considering  the positions  of the other  players  in the subject  undertaking.   The learned judge allowed the joinder of Kenya Airways, Kenya Aerotech, Tradewinds Aviation Ltd, Eurocraft Agencies and Swissport Kenyaas parties to those proceedings.

23. The intended  party also relied on JR 3/2015 Republic Vs  National Land Commission  Exparte  Lomoto  Limited  1962and  members of  Kokwembei Community  where  Munyao  Sila J  allowed joinder  of a proposed  interested  party  because  it had  an interest  in the outcome  of the litigation  and that it  may have some material that may assist the court in appreciating  the issues and in arriving at the decision whether  it  was   proper for  the  National Land  Commission  to hear  the complaint  presented  by the intended  interested party.

24. The exparte  applicant’s  counsel  Mr Midenga  submitted in opposition to the application by the intended  interested  party, relying  wholly on the replying  affidavit   of Honourable  Justus  Allo  Ogeka and the authorities.

25. Mr Midenga laid emphasis that albeit the court has unfettered discretion to join any party to the proceedings, that discretion must be exercised judiciously.  That there is no direct interest sought to be litigated by the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission in these proceedings, which interest is speculative.

26. Further, that there are already parties to these proceedings who are directly affected by the impugned Rules hence the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission interests are catered for.

27. Further, that this application is a deliberate intention to confuse the impugned Rules and guidelines made by National Council for Administration and delay these proceedings.  Reliance was  placed on Republic vs Central Bank of Kenya & Others[2016]eKLR where Odunga J dismissed an application  for joinder of a party Kenya Tea Development Agency  Holdings Limited as an interested  party on the ground  that the  court was not satisfied as to the position  of the alleged  subsidiary  companies   in the proceedings.  The learned judge stated.

“……….In my view, for a party to be joined to the proceedings under Order 53 Rule 3(2) aforesaid   the applicant ought to disclose to the court how he or she is directly  affected by  disclosing  upfront  its  legal position  in the matter   and  what it  intends  to place before the court that makes his  case distinct  from the case  presented  by the  other parties  to the proceedings in other words, there ought to be material  disclosure  of the intended case.”

28. The exparte  applicant  submitted that  nothing had  been shown  to the court  on how  these  proceedings  affect  the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission and therefore  justice  should not  be delayed and denied by allowing the application by the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission.

29. It was further submitted that in any event the Ohio Rules advocate for court sanctions   unlike the impugned Rules.  Further, that the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission will not add value to these proceedings as there is no evidence of public participation in the preparation of the impugned Rules.

30. That no bona fide claim has been shown hence the application should be dismissed with costs.

31. The respondents did not oppose the joinder of Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission.

32. In a rejoinder, Mrs Odipo submitted that the issue of the corruption is within the mandate of Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission hence its interests cannot be represented by others.

33. Further, that their   position is that the impugned Rules will reduce and not promote corruption.  She concluded that Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission has a bonafide claim and interest in the matter.  Counsel urged the court   to allow the application for joinder.

Determination

34. I have considered the application for joinder, grounds, supporting affidavit, submissions and annextures.  I have also considered the exparte applicant’s serious opposition thereto as per his replying affidavit, oral submissions and the authorities   relied on by the parties’ advocates in their sub missions.

35. The main issue for determination is whether Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission should be  enjoined  to these  proceedings as an  interested  party.

36. Order  53  Rule  3(2) and (4) of the Civil Procedure  Rules  stipulates:

“ (2) The  notice shall be served on all  persons  directly  affected, and where it  relates to any proceedings  in or before  a court, and  the object  is either to compel  the court or  an officer  thereof  to do any  action in relation  to the  proceedings or  to quash  them or  any order made  therein; the notice  of motion shall be served  on the presiding  officer of the  court  and  in all parties  to the proceedings.

(4) If on the hearing of the motion  the High Court is of the opinion that any person  who ought  to have been  served   therewith  has not been served, whether  or not  he is a  person who ought to  have been  served  under the foregoing  provisions  of this rule, the High Court may  adjourn  the hearing, in order  that the notice   may be  served  on that person, upon such terms ( if any) as the court may direct.”

37. It follows that whereas Subrule(2) of Order 53  of the Civil Procedure  Rules  restricts  persons  who should  be served to those  who are “directly affected,”Subrule (4)  gives  the  court wide  discretion to order  that the  application be served  on any person notwithstanding the fact that  that person  ought to have been served  under Subrule  2 or not  and the court’s  decision  to do so is  only subject to “such  terms (if any) as  the court may direct.”

38. It therefore  follows  that  unlike  the provisions  or Order  53 Rule  (2) of the Civil Procedure  Rules, the court  has unfettered  discretion  under Subrule (4), which power is  intended to ensure  that justice is  done, to permit  any other  person who ought  or  ought not  to have been  served, to be  served to participate  in the proceedings.

39. In other words, the court is given the power to allow joinder of any person to the proceedings whether that person applies or not, as long as it is satisfies that the party is a necessary party.

40. However, where  there  is a formal application  under Subrule (2), it is upon the person who claims  that they ought  to have  been served  or that they have a  legitimate interest in the proceedings, to demonstrate  how the  proceedings affect  them.

41. The court, nonetheless, has the  last word, under Subrule (4) to order  for joinder  of the person to the cause.  It must  however, be  noted that a  party  who wishes  to be enjoined to  Judicial Review  proceedings, which is concerned  with the  process and not the merits of the decision, is not seeking to transform Judicial Review  proceedings  into  ordinary civil litigation.  The person must demonstrate how the proceedings directly affect them, their rights or interests.

42. The court  must also  be satisfied  that  there will be  substantial benefit  to be  gained  by the joinder  of a person to  proceedings but where the joinder will militate against the expeditious  disposal  of the said  proceedings  which by their nature  ought to be heard and  determined speedily, the court will be unwilling to enjoin the  intended party  to the proceedings.

43. Where the  intended  interested  party’s interests can sufficiently be  catered  for by another  party  who is  already a primary  party to the  proceedings  there would  be no reason to  join the intended  interested party.

44. In Macadamia Nuts Dealers Vs Horticultural Crops Development  Authority  & Others [2014] e KLR  the court held:

“An interested  party us a party who  has a stake/interest   directly in the matter  before the court, though  he or she  is not a party to the case.  He must  be a party  who is likely  or who will  be affected  by the decision  of the court and he or she is   enjoined (sic) in the matter, his or  her interest  will not  be well  articulated  or protected  unless she or he is made   a party  to ventilate  his or her cause.”

45. According to the intending interested party, the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission, it will be affected by the outcome of these proceedings because, among other reasons, it is mandated by the Constitution to prevent corruption.

46. Further, that in its  investigative role, it  carried out  a research  which established  that the long  time taken to conclude  minor  traffic  offences  was contributing  to corruption by the traffic   police officers hence the instant fines payment  through MPESA  would reduce   corruption  on our roads.

47. Further, that the process of coming  up  with the  impugned  rules   was  a consultative  one through National  Council for  Administration of  Justice  stakeholders  hence  it participated in the preparation  of the  impugned Rules  and therefore it  should  be enjoined  to these  proceedings  in order  for Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission to articulate  its interests  which cannot  be articulated  by the respondents.

48. On the other hand, the exparte  applicant   maintains that the joinder  of Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission  to these  proceedings  is a delaying   tactic   to delay these  proceedings; the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission  has no stake  in these  proceedings; that  in any event, their  interests if any  are catered for by the respondents  herein; and  that the National  Council for  Administration of  Justice never participated  in the making   of the impugned  Rules.

49. Further, it is  contended that  in any event, there   was no public   participation in the process of the making  of the impugned Rules  and that  even the Ohio Rules have  court  sanction  unlike  the impugned  Rules which  oust  the  participation of the courts in the implementation of the said Rules.

50. On page 1 of the  exparte applicant’s  annextures is the impugned  legal notice No. 162 of 23rd  September  2016  and on page  6 is a  write up  by Francis  Meja, the Director  General National  Transport   & Safety  Authority.  In that   write up, it is clear from the initial  paragraphs  that there is  justification for the instant fines, whether  that is  legal or not, owing  to massive  corruption  experienced  on our roads  and which is  partly  attributed  to the delays  in our courts in processing  minor   traffic  offences.

51. The intending  party (Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission) has  also annexed  to its application  a copy of research findings  and recommendations for dealing   with  corruption on our roads.

52. In my  humble  view, whereas  at this  stage the court is not  expected  to delve  into the  merits   or demerits  of the main motion, it is clear  to me that  prima facie, the  Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission have  an identifiable  interest  or stake  in the outcome of this case since the Commission is constitutionally mandated to prevent corruption and to  investigate  all cases related to corruption  and  economic  crime.

53. The applicant’s application raises very serious issues of law and the Constitution.  In my humble  view, it cannot  be said  that the interest of Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission are taken care of by the Cabinet Secretary Transport; and National  Transport  & Safety Authority.  Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission is a constitutional commission established   pursuant to Chapter six of the Constitution on Leadership and Integrity (Article 79 of the Constitution).

54. Matters of corruption affect values and principles of Governance espoused in Article 10 of the Constitution among others, good governance, integrity, transparency, and accountability.  It cannot, therefore, be said that Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission is a busy body intending to delay these  proceedings  or that it  has no direct  stake  in these  proceedings when it  is clear that  it  was involved  in research  that brought  about recommendations on how  to tackle  the menace of  corruption on our roads.  This is not  to say that  their interest  must carry  the day in court, but  that infact, there is  no prejudice to be occasioned  to the exparte applicants if the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission are enjoined to these proceedings as they have  ably  demonstrated  their interest  in these  proceedings.  It is therefore only fair  and just that  the court accords  them an  opportunity  to ventilate  their  grievances  on the challenge  of the impugned  Rules.

55. All the decisions  relied on by both  parties are relevant to these  proceedings but a careful reading thereof reveals that the decisions clearly  establish  different circumstances  in which the court exercised its discretion in either allowing joinder or refusing  to join an intending interested parties to Judicial Review proceedings.  I am  therefore  persuaded  that Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission has  made out  a case that it deserves  to  be enjoined to  these proceedings as  interested parties.  The issue  of delay  does not  arise  as there is  a pending  application   seeking to vacate orders of this court  granting  leave  to the exparte  applicant to  institute   Judicial Review  proceedings and to set   aside  the order  that stayed  the implementation  of the impugned  Rules. That has not been caused by the EACC. Expedition must be balanced with the ultimate goal-justice for all.

57. Accordingly, I allow the application  dated 13th January  2017  and order  that the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission be and  is hereby  enjoined  to these  proceedings as an interested party.

57. I further  order that  in order to avoid  any more  delay to this case, the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission herein   joined  as interested  party do file  and  serve  its replying  affidavits  and  submissions to the exparte  applicant’s notice of  motion dated  27th October  2016  and to the  respondent’s  notice of motion dated  18th November  2016  with 7 days   from the date hereof.

58. The exparte applicant  and the respondents have 7 days from date  of service   to file and  serve further  affidavits if any, upon the interested  party, together with submissions.

59. The respondent’s motion shall be heard on 14th March 2017 together with preliminary objection filed by the exparte applicant.

60. Each party to bear their own costs of the notice of motion.

Orders accordingly.

Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nairobi this 13th day of February 2017.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Mr WACHIRA h/b for Midenga for the exparte applicant

Mrs Odipo for the Intereste dparty

Miss Ngelechei for the Respondent

CA: George