Court dismisses bid to discontinue Njau’s stay at NTSA over road carnage » Capital News
NAIROBI, Kenya, Jul 27 — The High Court in Nairobi on Friday dismissed the case in which a petitioner was seeking to block the National Transport Safety Authority (NTSA ) from extending the term of the authority’s Director General George Njao for failure to address road carnage in the country.
The petitioner, Edwin Oduor Were, had on March 20, challenged a consent earlier entered between the parties saying it was adopted without his knowledge.
Oduor had told the court that his lawyer Jacob Okoth had entered the adoption of a consent with the NTSA Board of Directors, the respondent, on January 16, 2023 without his knowledge, calling for it’s vacation.
He argued that the agreement entered through which the court gave NTSA the a go ahead to recruit anyone as a new director is prejudicial.
However, in his ruling on Friday, Justice Byrum Ongaya of the Employment and Labour Court argued that the applicant ought to have appealed if he was dissatisfied maintaining that “the instant application is an abuse of Court process as is res judicata.”
“It is obvious from the record that the applicant had instructed counsel who signed and filed a consent in Court and which was adopted by the Court as an order,” said the Judge.
“Any want of instructions on the part of the client, the applicant, falls for professional disciplinary processes.”
In it’s objection, NTSA counsel had argued the petitioner is at liberty to appeal the decision of the Court since the “Court cannot sit on its own appeal.”
Further the respondent argued that the court “lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain, hear, determine and/or grant the orders sought in the application”.
Additionally, they termed the application as res judicata arguing that the issues raised had been “dealt with exhaustively and settled” in the ruling of the same court delivered February 10, 2023.
They added that the ruling had neither been appealed against nor reviewed by any court of competent jurisdiction adding that the application is “frivolous, vexatious and blatant abuse of the Court process”.
The court agreed with the respondents on Friday that the applicant does not deny the respondent’s position that there is a previously decided suit determining similar matters based on same cause of action and that there are pending suits on similar matters in dispute in the instant petition.
The court stated that the petitioner “appears to have avenues for justiceto be served on the merits of the dispute herein but for theconsent order” and dismissed the applications with costs.
“As the application is found to abuse court process, the applicant will pay costs of the application,” Justice Ongaya said in a ruling delivered via video link and in Nairobi.
“In conclusion, the application dated 20.03.2024 filed for the petitionerhere in is hereby dismissed with costs as the preliminary objection isupheld as found by the Court.”
About The Author
