Republic v Transport Licensing Appeal Board, National Transport Safety Authority & Figkomba Sacco Ltd Ex-Parte MNGN Sacco Ltd [2017] KEHC 2664 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  37 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY MNGN SACCO FOR ORDERS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORT SAFETY AUTHORITY ACT

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE TRANSPORT LICENSING APPEALS BOARD

AND

REPUBLIC ……………………......……………………………………...APPLICANT

VERSUS

TRANSPORT LICENSING APPEAL BOARD ………………1ST RESPONDENT

THE NATIONAL TRANSPORT SAFETY

AUTHORITY………...……………….……………………….2ND RESPONDENT

FIGKOMBA SACCO LTD …..…………………………….INTERESTED PARTY

MNGN SACCO LTD………………………………………..………….EX-PARTE

JUDGMENT

1. On 9th February 2017 the exparte applicant MNGN Sacco Ltd   was granted leave of court to institute Judicial Review proceedings within 14 days. The notice of motion was filed on 20th February 2017 seeking the following Judicial Review orders:

a Certiorarito quash the decision of  the Transport  Licensing  Appeals Board  at Nairobi  in Case No. 20 of  2016  between FIGKOMBA Sacco Ltd and National Transport and  Safety  Authority dated 7th December, 2016;

b. Mandamuscompelling  the  National Transport  and  Safety  Authority to revoke  the road  service license  and or any decision made in favour of FIGKOMBA  Sacco Ltd  pursuant  to the decision of the  Transport  Licensing  Appeals Board in case No. 20 of 2016 between FIGKOMBA  Sacco  Ltd  and  National Transport  and  Safety  Authority dated  7th  December, 2016.

c. Costs.

2. The application is predicated  on the grounds  contained  in the statutory  statement  dated  17th February  2017  and  verifying  affidavit sworn  by Daniel Macharia  on 17th February  2017.

3. The application is predicated  on the grounds  contained  in the statutory  statement  dated 17th  February  2017 and  verifying  affidavit    sworn  by Daniel Macharia  on 17th February  2017.

4. According  to the exparte  applicant, on 7th December  2016  the National Transport  and  Safety  Authority rendered  a decision which  was  in total non-compliance  with the  law and  without justification.

5. That the impugned  decision  materially  and adversely affected the exparte  applicant  who was not afforded  a chance  to be heard  in spite  of the judgment expressly  recognizing  that MNGN Sacco  Ltd  had an interest  in the matter; That the  decision rendered  by the Transport  Licensing  Appeals  Board  was  unreasonable, unjustified, unlawful  and  oppressive  to the exparte  applicant; That the decision   by the Transport  Licensing  Appeals  Board was made in excess of jurisdiction and  is  consequently  illegal  and  null and void   for  all intents  and  purposes; That it is fair, just and in the interest of justice that orders sought be granted.

6. The exparte  applicant’s case as set  out in the  verifying  affidavit  of Daniel  Macharia, its  Chairman  MNGN Sacco Ltd is that its public  service   motor vehicles  are licensed  by the  National Transport  and  Safety  Authority to operate  within the Mathare  North- Gikomba – Ngara – Fig Treeroute  with the current  fleet of motor vehicles  plying the subject  route  standing  at  61.

7. On the other hand, it is alleged  that the  interested party FIGKOMBA Sacco Ltd motor  vehicles  are licensed  to operate   within  Ngara- Gikomba- Kiambu route  with  a fleet  of 38  vehicles.

8. That  over the years, there has been  the  intrusion of FIGKOMBA  Sacco Ltd  vehicles  on the exparte  applicant’s  route which   has led to  disputes  and  complaints   lodged with the National Transport  and  Safety  Authority by the exparte  applicant.

9. In 2016, the interested  party  lodged  a complaint  with the Transport  Licensing  Appeals  Board  against the  National Transport  and  Safety  Authority touching  on the Mathare  North route  operated  by the exparte  applicant’s  vehicles  culminating in the judgment of  the Transport  Licensing  Appeals  Board   delivered  on 7th December   2016.

10. It is alleged that the said judgment  materially  and  adversely  affected  the exparte  applicant   yet the latter  was not made a party to  the dispute  and neither  was it called upon to be  heard  before an  adverse  decision  was made  against  it.  It  is therefore  claimed  that the  decision of the Transport  Licensing  Appeals  Board  offended  the rules  of natural justice  as it affected  the exparte applicant’s business directly  and  adversely  yet they  were not  afforded  a chance  to be heard; that  the  decision did not comply with the law and  was  without  justification; was  made in excess  of jurisdiction, was  illegal, null and  void ab initio and that it is  fair, just  and  in the interest  of justice  that  the orders sought be  granted.

11. The impugned judgment among other documents were annexed to the verifying affidavit.

12. Despite  service of  the  notice of motion  upon the  respondents   and  the interested party, only the   2nd respondent  the National Transport  and  Safety Authority entered  an appearance  and  filed a replying affidavit  sworn by Cosmas Ngeso its Deputy  Director, Registration on  24th February, 2017.

13. According to the  2nd respondent, it draws its mandate  from the National Transport  and  Safety  Authority Act No. 33 of  2012   and that both    the  exparte applicant  and  interested party are currently registered  and  licensed  transport  operations   which are  recognized  by the Authority.

14. That the interested party filed an  appeal to the Transport  Licensing  Appeals  Board  claiming that  the  Authority  had failed to amend its  Road  Service   License (RSL) to include   the name  “ Mathare North” and  to rectify the representation  of “Ngara” and  “ Fig Tree” as the different  destinations, as they  denote  one  destination.

15. Further, that the interested party  also alleged that the name   “Mathare North”  was  omitted from  their  Road  Service   Licence  during the  transition from the Transport  Licensing   Board  to National Transport  and  Safety  Authority.

16. That  when the interested  party  wrote a letter  dated  1st  August  2016   to the National Transport  and  Safety  Authority, the Authority  advised the interested  party to apply for  a  route extension  requesting  “ Mathare North”  to be included  in their Road  Service   Licence.

17. That the interested lodged an application for inclusion of “Mathare North” in its Road Service Licence but after consideration, the Authority refused the application due to several considerations including   current operators on the same route and the need to avoid uneconomical competition.

18. That being  aggrieved by the  decision of the  Authority, the interested party    lodged an appeal  to the  Transport  Licensing   Appeals Board  claiming that  National Transport  and  Safety  Authority had refused to amend its  Road Service Licence to include “ Mathare  North” and  to rectify  the  representation  of “Ngara”  and  “ Fig Tree” as  two different  destinations as they denote  one  destination.

19. That after the Transport Licensing   Appeals Board heard the interested party, it delivered its judgment on 7th December 2016 making the following   substantive orders:

“a. A declaration that the Appellant’s  constitutional  right   to a fair administrative action  was violated.

b. An order of certiorari quashing the respondent ( NTSA’s ) decision to refuse the Appellant’s (interested partys’)  application to  have the  word “Mathare North” inserted into their Road Service Licence;

c. An order of mandamus compelling the respondent  to reconsider  the  applicant’s  application and made  a  lawful decision.

d. That the order be served  upon National Transport  and  Safety  Authority and  Traffic Commandant  with a view  to ensuring   that  FIGKOMBA  vehicles  are allowed  to operate  along  the Mathare  route  until the  respondent  makes a  lawful decision as per order  No. three(3)  above(mandamus).”

20. The applicant  and the  2nd respondent’s  counsels  filed written  submissions  to explain  away their  respective  positions  as supported by authorities annexed  thereto, which they adopted  as canvassing their  respective  client’s positions.

21. The  exparte  applicant’s  submissions  were filed  on 25th  April  2017  whereas  the  2nd respondent’s submissions   were filed  on  12th May 2017  and  as the court  was proceeding  on leave, judgment  date had to be fixed   falling on  a  suitable  date after  resumption from my leave.

22. The parties’ submissions  basically reiterate their respective  positions as per the grounds and or depositions in their respective  affidavits reproduced in this judgment.

23. The exparte applicant maintained that the 1st respondent Transport  Licensing   Appeals Board was all along  aware that  its decision  would materially  and adversely  affect  the  exparte  applicant since the  latter’s vehicles  are licenced  to ply Mathare  North  route  yet  it went  ahead  to hear the interested  party and   make a determination  without ensuring  that the  appeal  giving  rise to  the decision  of  7th December  2016.

24. Reliance  was placed  on Article  47  of the Constitution  on the right to  a fair  administrative  action and  Section  4(3)  of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 which stipulates that where an administrative   action is likely to  adversely affect  the rights and fundamental freedoms of any person, the administrator  shall give  the  person affected  by the decision  prior notice; an opportunity to be heard and to make  representation; notice of a right  to a review  or  internal appeal  against the administrative decision where applicable; statement  of  reasons, notice  of the right to legal  representation  where applicable; notice of  the right  to cross  examine  or where applicable; information, materials  and  evidence  to be relied upon in making  the  decision or taking  the administrative  decision.

25. Further reliance was placed on Section 5 of the Fair  Administrative  Action  Act on the procedure  to be adopted  by an administrative  body where the  proposed  action is likely to materially  and  adversely  affect  the  legal  rights  or interests  of a group  of persons or the  general public.

26. On the  requirement  that the administrative  action must be  fair,  reliance   was placed on Republic  vs  National Transport  and  Safety Authority and 2 others Exparte Rengcom Communications  Ltd  [2017] e KLR.

27. On the  need to take  into account  the interests  of third parties  who are  likely to be affected  by the decision, reliance  was placed on Council of Legal  Education  & Another  Exparte  Mount Kenya  University [2016]  e KLR  citing with  approval Judicial Service Commission  vs  Mbalu Mutava  & Another [2015] e KLR.

28. According  to the  exparte applicant, the decision  made by  the  Transport Licencing Appeals Board was made without  jurisdiction  as the powers  of the Appeals Board  are stipulated  in Section 39(5)  of the National Transport and  Safety Authority Act, 2012   which powers do not  include  the power to make the  orders made  on  7th December  2016.

29. It  was  submitted that the  Judicial Review  orders made  by the Transport  Licencing  Appeals Board are only  in the  preserve  of the High Court hence the orders were made without jurisdiction.  The exparte  applicant  prayed that  the  application be allowed with  costs.

30. The  2nd  respondent’s  submissions  in all material particulars mirror  the  depositions by its Deputy  Director  and  concludes by stating  that it  welcomes  any decision  of this court since  it is the decision of the  1st respondent  that is sought to be  impugned  and   quashed.

31. The 2nd respondent  further  prays  that there should   be no order  of costs  against it given  it is  the decision  of the  1st respondent Transport  Licencing  Appeals Board which is  challenged .

DETERMINATION.

32. I have  carefully  considered  the  exparte  applicant’s  motion, grounds, statutory statement; verifying affidavit and  annextures. I have given  equal  consideration  to the 2nd  respondent’s  replying  affidavit  and  both parties advocates’  submissions and the case law  as  well as  constitutional  and  statutory provisions   relied  on by the  exparte  applicant’s  counsel.  In my view, the following  issues  flow  for determination  in this application  which are:

1. Whether  the  1st   respondent  had jurisdiction  to make the  orders that  it made vide its  decision  of 7th December 2016.

2. Whether  the  exparte  applicant   was  entitled  to be heard  before the 1st respondent  made the orders  of  7th December  2016.

3. What  orders  should this court make.

4. Who should bear costs of these Judicial Review  proceedings.

33. On the first issue of  whether the  1st respondent  had jurisdiction  to make the orders  which  it made vide its  decision of  7th December 2016, the  Transport Licensing  Appeals Board  is a creature of  the  statute namely, the National  Transport and  Safety Authority Act, 2012.  Under  Section 39(5)  of the Act, the Board is  vested with  the  jurisdiction   to, on appeal, to affirm  or  reverse   the  decision of  the Authority, or make such other order  as the Board considers  necessary and  fit.

34. The Board  is an Appeals  Board which  exercises  powers as  a tribunal  or subordinate  court.  It is  subject to  the  Constitution, the laws  of the land  and the High Court   which exercises  supervisory  powers over it, like it  does to  all other tribunals, bodies, persons or subordinate courts( see Article 165 (6) and (7) of the Constitution.

35. In considering whether or not the 1st respondent had  jurisdiction to make orders  that it did make  on 7th December  2016, it is  important  to note  that jurisdiction  is everything  without which  a court of  law or tribunal acts in vain. (seeOwners of the Motor Vessel “ Lilian S” –vs- Caltex Oil(Kenya) Ltd (1989) KLR 1 where Justice Nyarangi of the Court of Appeal states that:-

“I think that it is reasonably plain that a question of jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity and the court seized of the matter is then obliged to decide the issue right away on the material before it.  Jurisdiction is everything.  Without it, a court has no power to make one more step.  Where a court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence.  A court of law downs tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction.”

36. It has been said that  the authority for this holding by the then Learned Judge of Appeal is to be found in the writings of John Beecroft Saunders in a Treatise headed Words and Phrase Legally defined-Volume 3:I-N where the Learned Author states at Page 113 the following about jurisdiction:-

“By jurisdiction is meant the authority which the court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision.  The limits of this authority are imposed by the statue, charter, or commission under which the court is constituted, and may be extended or restricted by the like means.  If no restrictions or limits is imposed the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited.  A limitation may be either as to the kind and nature of the actions and matters of which the particular court has cognizance or as to the area over which the jurisdiction shall extend, or it may partake of both these characteristics.  If the jurisdiction of an inferior court or tribunal (including an arbitrator) depends on the existence of a particular state of facts, the court or tribunal must inquire into the existence of the facts in order to decide whether it has jurisdiction; but, except where the court or tribunal has been given power to determine conclusively whether the facts exists.  Where a court takes it upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing.  Jurisdiction must be acquired before Judgment is given.”

37. It  is jurisdiction  granted by statute or the  Constitution  that courts, tribunals  or persons  exercising  judicial or  quasi-judicial  authority exercise.  Jurisdiction  cannot be  granted by craft  or by  consent  of the parties.  It is  a creature  of legal  or constitutional  instruments and therefore  where a  tribunal  or quasi  or judicial  body or person exercises  jurisdiction  which it does  not possess, it is  said to  have acted  in excess of its  jurisdiction or ultra  vires.

38. The  High Court has  power to intervene  and interfere in cases  where the  it is  called upon to do so, and where  it is satisfied  that on   the material  before it, the  tribunal  is proven  to have acted  either  illegally or  without jurisdiction  in rendering  its decisions.

39. Thus,  Judicial Review  is a constitutional  supervision of public authorities  or bodies  involving   a challenge to the legal  and  procedural  validity  of the decision.  Judicial  Review  is not an appeal.  It does not  allow the court to examine the  evidence  with a view  to forming  its own  independent  opinion  about the  substantial  merits of  the  case.  If a tribunal or public body  does something or makes  a decision which it  had no lawful  authority  to do, or  if it  abuses  or misuses that  authority  or departs  from procedures  which either  the  statute  or at  common law, as  a matter  of  fairness, ought to  have been  observed  and  followed to  the  letter, the court   will intervene.

40. Equally, where the  decision of a public authority, or where  a public  authority, or administrative or  judicial  body had  the jurisdiction  to make  decisions  but the  decision  itself  is  perverse, or  irrational, or grossly disproportionate  to what   was required or where  the decision  is found to  be erroneous  in respect  of a legal deficiency  such  as through  absence   of evidence  or through the taking into  account of  an irrelevant  matter, the High Court   may intervene  without forming  its own  preferred  view of  the  evidence.

41. In this  case, the question  is whether  the Appeals Board had jurisdiction to issue  Declarations to the effect that the  Appellant’s Interested party Constitutional  Rights   to Fair Administrative  Action  was violated; or to issue certiorari quashing  the  2nd  respondent’s  decision  or mandamus  compelling  reconsideration  of the interested party/appellant’s application to make a lawful decision.

42. On the first order which is a declaration that the  appellant’s/interested  party’s  Constitutional   Right to  a Fair Administrative Action was violated, Article 22 of the Constitution confers  on every person the  right to  institute  court proceedings claiming  that a right or fundamental  freedom  in the Bill of Rights  has been denied, violated or infringed   or it threatened.

43. In addition, Article  23  which  deals  with authority  of courts to  uphold  and  enforce  the  Bill of Rights   confers  on the High Court jurisdiction, in accordance   with Article  165, to hear  and  determine   applications for  redress of a  denial, violation  or infringement of, or threat to, a right  or fundamental  freedom in the Bill of Rights.

44. Sub Article 2 thereof  empowers Parliament  to enact  legislation to give original  jurisdiction  in appropriate  cases to subordinate courts to hear and determine applications for  redress  of a denial, violation or infringement of, or threat to a right or fundamental  freedom  in the Bill of Rights.

45. The orders/appropriate relief  that a court may issue under Article  22 of the  Constitution, are, among  others- a declaration of  rights; an injunction, a conservatory  order, a declaration of invalidity of any law that denied, violates, infringes, or   threatens  a right or  fundamental freedom  in the  Bill of Rights  and is not justified under Article 24; an order for  compensation; and  an order of Judicial Review.

46. Under  Article  165(3)  of the Constitution, the High Court  is vested  with unlimited  original and appellate  jurisdiction in criminal  and  civil matters; jurisdiction to determine the  question  whether  a  right or fundamental  freedom  in the Bill or Rights has been  denied, violated, infringed  or threatened; jurisdiction  to hear  an appeal  from a decision  of a tribunal  appointed under  the Constitution  to consider the  removal of  a person  from office  other than a  tribunal appointed under Article  144( on  removal  of President  on  grounds of incapacity).

47. From  the above  constitutional  provisions, it is  clear that  only the High  Court is  vested with unlimited  original  and  appellate  jurisdiction in matters  of declaration of rights and  fundamental  freedoms in the Bill of Rights.  Subordinate  courts are, under  Article  23(2)  of the Constitution, subject to legislation being  enacted by Parliament, only vested  with original jurisdiction and only in appropriate  cases, to hear  and  determine  applications for  redress of a denial, violation  or infringement  of, or  threat to, a  right or fundamental  freedom on the Bill of Rights  and in doing  so, the courts( whether  subordinate  or High Court) may grant the appropriate  relief  as  stipulated  in Article  23(3)  of the Constitution.

48. Subordinate courts are defined under Article 169(1) of the Constitution as:-

a) The Magistrate’s  courts.

b) The Kadhi’s Courts.

c) The Court’s Martial; and

d) Any other court or local tribunal  as may be established     by an Act  of Parliament,  other than the courts  established  under Article 162(2).

49. Under Article 169(2) of the Constitution, Parliament  is empowered to enact   legislation conferring  jurisdiction, functions  and  powers  on the courts established  under Clause(1).

50. No doubt, the Transport  Licensing  Appeals  Board is a local tribunal  established  under the National Transport  and  Safety Authority  Act, 2012 with jurisdiction  to hear appeals  from the decisions of the National Transport  and  Safety Authority.  The Appeals Board  can therefore  safely  be considered   to be a subordinate  court as  stipulated  in Article   169(1) (d) of the  Constitution and its jurisdiction  clearly  spelt  out in Section 39(5) of the National Transport  and  Safety Authority Act.

51. The statute  creating  the Appeals  Board is  clear that the  Board  only has  appellate  jurisdiction and  not  original  jurisdiction.

52. A declaration of rights or grant  of rights  or grant  of any  of the reliefs  under Article  23(1)  of the Constitution  cannot be  made by a subordinate court  exercising  appellate  jurisdiction.  It follows, therefore, without much  ado, that  the  1st  respondent  Appeals  Board, in  declaring  that the interested  party’s  rights  guaranteed  under  the Constitution  were violated, the Appeals  Board  was  usurping  powers  of the High Court.

53. In the same  vein,  the  1st respondent  Appeals Board   was acting  beyond  and  outside  its jurisdiction  and  without jurisdiction  when it  made Judicial Review  orders of certiorari  and  mandamus against   the  decision of  the National Transport and  Safety  Authority as it had  no such jurisdiction  as an Appeals  Board to grant  such orders  in exercise  of its appellate  jurisdiction.

54. It therefore  follows that  even without  deciding   whether  or not  the exparte  applicant  herein   was heard  or entitled  to  be heard   or not, the  1st respondent  acted ultra vires  not only  the  statutory provisions  of the Section  39  of National Transport and  Safety  Authority Act, 2012 but made  a decision  which out rightly  contravened  Articles  23,165 of the Constitution  by usurping jurisdiction  which is exclusive  to the High Court   by granting  orders of   Judicial Review  and  Declaration of Rights guaranteed  under the Constitution without first  stopping  to examine  whether it   had such  jurisdiction to do so.

55. A tribunal  has no inherent jurisdiction ( See Republic vs  Cabinet  Secretary  Ministry of  Education  exparte  John Njomo[2017] e KLR. It  only acts  in accordance  with the  vested  jurisdiction/power.  It would  be guilty of  abuse of  power of it  granted orders that are expressly  excluded  by the Constitution and that is  exactly  what the  1st   respondent  herein, the Appeals Board did, by acting  without jurisdiction  and  outside its jurisdiction.

56. For those reasons, I have no  hesitation  in finding   and  holding that  the  decision of the  1st respondent  was  and  is illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional.

57. Accordingly, the Order  No. 4  of the decision of  7th December  2016   which   flows  from orders Nos. 1,2 and  3   cannot  lie for  want of  jurisdiction.

58. For the  foregoing  reasons, I find and  hold  that the exparte  applicant’s notice  of motion dated  17th February  2017   is merited in its entirety.  I grant  prayers Nos.  1 and  2   of the notice  of motion as sought.

59. Costs   are in the  discretion of the court.  However, in this case, the court finds that the  impugned  decision   was made  by the 1st   respondent  which is  a public body   under the   judiciary, out of utter ignorance.  The  2nd   respondent  was  enjoined  to the  proceedings because  the  1st respondent  had considered  the latter’s decision not to allow  the  interested party  to include  a route “ Mathare North” in its  Road  Service Licence.  It is also a public  body.

60. The interested  party  is the  exparte  applicant’s  competitor  in the matatu Public Service Vehicle business.  In order to  promote harmonious co-existence between the exparte applicant’s and  the  interested  party’s  members of  the  Public Service Vehicle  operators  in the matatu sector which  has been  difficult to manage  over the years, and to  save tax  payers  of the burden  of paying costs  in these hard economic   times, I order that  each  party  shall bear  their  own costs  of these Judicial  Review proceedings.

Dated, signed and delivered  in open court  at  Nairobi this 17th day of October, 2017

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE