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

Martin G. Kihara v National Transport and Safety Authority [2020] KETLABT 133 (KLR)

[2020] KETLABT 133 (KLR) KETLABT
Read PDF
Court
KETLABT
Case number
133
Citation
[2020] KETLABT 133 (KLR)
Decided
20 January 2020
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeTransport Licensing AppealPostureAppeal from a decision of the National Transport and Safety AuthorityCoramDick Waweru, Moses Parantai, Betty Chepng'etich Bii
Holding

The appellant is entitled to a Class D2 endorsement on his driving license and his right to fair administrative action was infringed.

Facts

The appellant, Martin G. Kihara, holds a BCE license and has been driving for over 26 years. He applied for a Class D2 endorsement but was told to go back to driving school. He argued that his Class A stamp on his license qualifies him for Class D2 endorsement.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant has adduced enough evidence to prove he had a Class A stamp on his driving license
  2. Whether the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) infringed on the appellant's right to fair administrative action

Reasoning

The appellant has proven he has been driving for over 4 years and is over 24 years old, meeting the requirements for a Class D2 endorsement. The decision to require the appellant to go back to driving school was unreasonable and illegal.

Outcome

Affirmed

Orders

  • Appellant is entitled to Class D2 endorsement
  • NTSA's decision to require the appellant to go back to driving school is unlawful and unreasonable
  • NTSA must update the appellant's driving license with Class D2 endorsement within 7 days
  • Order to be served upon NTSA and the Traffic Commandant

Remedies

  • Class D2 endorsement on the appellant's driving license
  • Update of the appellant's driving license with Class D2 endorsement

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Traffic Act
  • Fair Administrative Action Act
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