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

Opagala v National Transport and Safety Authority (Appeal E028 of 2022) [2023] KETLABT 679 (KLR) (23 August 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KETLABT 679 (KLR) KETLABT
Read PDF
Court
KETLABT
Case number
679
Citation
[2023] KETLABT 679 (KLR)
Decided
23 August 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAppealPostureAppellant appeals against the decision of National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) on 25th July 2022 at Bungoma.CoramDR. ADRIAN KAMOTHO CHAIRPERSON, JOSEPH MCDONALD MEMBER, MARYAN HAJIR MEMBER, JAMES NGOMELI MEMBER, WAITHIRA MUIRURI MEMBER
Holding

The Appellant has the right to have the class removed from his driving license during variation restored.

Facts

The Appellant, Richard Elly Opagala, claims that the Respondent, National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA), failed to include his class 'A' in his smart driving license, contrary to the law. He provided his red book driving license, which included class 'A'.

Issues

  1. Whether the Appellant has the right to have the class removed from his driving license during variation restored by the respondent?

Reasoning

Section 82 of the Traffic Act, 2015 states that the particulars endorsed on any previous license shall be inserted in the new license unless the person has previously become entitled to the issue of a license free from endorsement. The Appellant has provided his red book driving license, which included class 'A'.

Outcome

The Appellant's appeal is upheld.

Orders

  • The Respondent (NTSA) to issue the Appellant with a smart driving license with all the endorsements (A) within fourteen (14) days.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Remedies

  • The Respondent (NTSA) to issue the Appellant with a smart driving license with all the endorsements (A) within fourteen (14) days.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Traffic Act, 2015
  • National Transport and Safety Authority Act No. 33 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