SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

City Riders Sacco & 11 Others v County Government of Nairobi & 3 Others [2016] KEHC 2151 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 2151 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
2151
Citation
[2016] KEHC 2151 (KLR)
Decided
31 October 2016
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypePetitionPosturePetition No. 521 of 2015CoramJ.L.ONGUTO
Holding

The Court finds no violation of the Petitioners' rights or any contravention of the law by the Respondents.

Facts

The Petitioners are boda-boda riders registered under the Cooperative Societies Act and the Transport Act. They claim the County Government of Nairobi has violated their rights by stopping them from operating within the Central Business District (CBD).

Issues

  1. Whether the County Government of Nairobi has the mandate to regulate motorcycle taxis within the CBD.
  2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to operate within the CBD as per their registration under the Cooperative Societies Act.

Reasoning

The Court holds that the County Government of Nairobi has the constitutional mandate to regulate public transport matters within Nairobi City County, including the regulation of traffic and parking within the CBD. However, the registration by the Commissioner of Cooperative Societies does not grant the Petitioners the right to operate outside the Regulations and laws enacted by the County Government.

Outcome

The Petition dated 20th November, 2015 is hereby dismissed for want of merit.

Orders

  • The Petition dated 20th November, 2015 is hereby dismissed for want of merit.
  • Each Party shall bear its own costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (4)
  • Cooperative Societies Act
  • Transport Act
  • Constitution of Kenya
  • Fourth Schedule to the Constitution
Cases cited (1)
  • Kenya Taxi Cabs Association (suing through its registered officials) Peter Waweru Mburu and 4 Others vs City Council of Nairobi, Petition No. 37 of 2012
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case