REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CONSTITUTIONAL & HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITION NO. E101 OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 1, 2, (3) (b) & 4 (a), 10, 20 (1), 21, 22 (1) & (2) (c) AND 23, 31,40 & 40 (2) (a), 94 (1) & (5), 95 (2), 118 (1) (b), 124 (1), 165(3)(d) (I) & (ii), 186, 258 (1), (2) (c) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF CONTRAVENTION OF ARTICLES 10(2)(b), 27 (1) & (4), 31(c) (d), 40(2)(3), 47, 48, 94 (1) & (5), 95 (2), 159 (2) (c), 186 (4), 258 & 259, 232 and FOURTH SCHEDULE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORT AND SAFETY AUTHORITY ACT, 2012
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORT AND SAFETY AUTHORITY (TRANSPORT NETWORK COMPANIES, OWNERS, DRIVERS, AND PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS, 2022
AND
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS IN KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ACT, 2015
AND
IN THE MATTER OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS ACT, 2013
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT, 2019
AND
IN THE MATTER OF COMPETITION ACT, 2010
BETWEEN
BOLT OPERATIONS OÜ ........................................................ PETITIONER
AND
THE CABINET SECRETARY
FOR ROADS AND TRANSPORT.................................... 1 ST RESPONDENT
THE NATIONAL TRANSPORT
& SAFETY AUTHORITY.................................................2 ND RESPONDENT
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ........................................ 3 RD RESPONDENT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ........................................ 4 TH RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner, Bolt Operations OÜ, is described as an Estonian digital platform connecting independent drivers with passengers. It filed the present Petition challenging the constitutionality and validity of the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022, against the Cabinet Secretary for Roads and Transport, the NTSA, the National Assembly, and the Attorney General.
2. The Petitioner avers that the regulations which mandate a Transport Network License, strict operational and data-sharing obligations and a hard 18% cap on driver commissions were enacted through a procedurally flawed process. Specifically, that the regulations failed to undergo mandatory public participation, lacked a required Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) despite causing severe economic distortions and that the impugned Regulations came into force before being properly tabled or reviewed by Parliament during its 2022 election recess.
3. Essentially, the Petitioner asserts that the Regulations violate multiple constitutional rights, statutory provisions and institutional boundaries. The Petitioner asserts that the 18% commission cap and banned booking fees infringe on property rights under Article 40 and distorts fair competition, that mandatory data retention breaches user privacy rights under Article 31 and the Data Protection Act 2019 and that centralizing platform licensing encroaches upon devolved county transport functions.
4. Further, the Petitioner claims that the NTSA acted ultra vires by exceeding its statutory road safety mandate to impose price controls, administrative burdens and discriminatory regulations solely on digital platforms while excluding traditional taxis. Consequently, it seeks a declaration that the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 are null and void, along with an order prohibiting their enforcement.
5. The Petition dated 28 th February 2025 seeks the following reliefs: -
(1) This Honourable Court be pleased to hold and declare that the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 are unlawful, unconstitutional, and contravene the provisions of Articles 10, 93 (2), 94 (5), 95(2), and 118 (1) (b), 186 (4) of the constitution for failing to comply with the national values of inclusiveness, openness, transparency, and public participation and are inconsistent with the mandatory process for the making of statutory instruments under Sections 10, 11, (1) and (2) and 22 of the Statutory Instruments Act.
(2) This Honourable Court be pleased to hold and declare that the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 are unlawful, unconstitutional, null, and void as they introduce regulations that conflict with the devolved functions of the county government contrary to Articles 6 and 189 of the Constitution.
(3) This Honourable Court be pleased to hold and declare that the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 are unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void as they impose novel obligations on transport network companies contrary to the legislative mandate of Parliament set out in Articles 94 (1), (5), 95 (2) and 186 (4) of the Constitution and are ultra vires to the mandate of the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents’ mandate under Sections 4 (2) and 54 of the National Transport and Safety Authority Act.
(4) This Honourable Court be pleased to hold and declare that the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 are unlawful, unconstitutional, null, and void as they infringe on the Petitioner's to equal protection and benefit from the law and protection from discrimination; and contravene the provisions of Articles 10(1)(c), 10(2)(b) and 27 of the Constitution.
(5) This Honourable Court be pleased to hold and declare that the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 are unlawful, unconstitutional, and invalid as they infringe on the Petitioner's obligations of privacy under Article 31(c) and (d) of the Constitution and Section 25 of the Data Protection Act.
(6) This Honourable Court be pleased to hold and declare that the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 unlawful, unconstitutional, null, and void as they infringe on the Petitioner's right to property; and contravene the provisions of Article 40(2) (3) of the Constitution.
(7) An order of prohibition be and is hereby issued restraining the 1 st and 2 nd Petitioners, their agents, employees, and servants, from further implementation, administration, application, and or/enforcement of the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022.
(8) The costs consequent upon this Petition be provided for.
(9) Any other remedy or such other orders as this Honourable Court may deem just and expedient in the circumstances to remedy the violation of the Petitioner's fundamental constitutional rights and freedoms.
6. The Petition is premised on the facts on the face of it and further supported by the affidavit of Demetrius Winston Kanyankole sworn on 28 th February 2025 in which he introduces Bolt Operations OÜ as an Estonian information society provider operating the digital ride-hailing app ‘Bolt’ and ‘Bolt Food’ in Kenya and clarifies that Bolt functions purely as an intermediary connecting independent drivers (Transport Network Drivers/TNDs) with passengers (Transport Network Passengers/TNPs). He avers that Bolt does not own the vehicles or employ the drivers; rather, drivers maintain operational autonomy and Bolt earns revenue through a percentage commission on fares to support and develop its platform infrastructure.
7. The deponent details a long timeline of regulatory engagements between 2019 and 2022, during which multiple draft instruments were proposed, including the 2019 NTSA Regulations, the 2020 Traffic Rules and subsequent draft rules developed in consultation with stakeholders and a World Bank consultant. He deposes that, however, without notice or public consultation on the final draft Regulations, the 1 st Respondent published the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 under Legal Notice 120 of 2022 on 20 th June 2022 , gazetting them on 1 st July 2022, the same day they came into force.
8. The deponent avers that there were several procedural and statutory flaws surrounding the enactment process. He pleads that the specific National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 were never subjected to public or stakeholder consultation prior to gazettement, breaching Articles 10 and 118 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act (SI Act).
9. Secondly, that the Respondents failed to prepare or gazette a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) as mandated by Sections 6, 8, and 9 of the Statutory Instruments Act , despite the severe operational and economic impact on ride-hailing businesses. That while state officials verbally acknowledged this omission during a December 2023 meeting, no Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) was ever finalized.
10. He swears that the 90-day transitional compliance window granted to existing ride-hailing operators expired on 29 th September 2022, the very first day the 13 th Parliament sat following its election recess, meaning, operators were forced to comply with the impugned gazetted Regulations before the Regulations were formally tabled in Parliament on 4 th October 2022, or approved by 28 th February 2023.
11. The deponent also swears that the Petition challenges the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 across several key constitutional and legal grounds being: infringement on Property Rights and Contractual Autonomy under Article 40) and Regulations 9(1)(g) and 19(3) cap commission rates payable by drivers to Transport Network Companies (TNCs) at 18%.
12. The deponent states that this arbitrary price control interferes with commercial contracts, prevents market differentiation and distorts fair competition under Section 21 of the Competition Act, 2010 . Further, that when the Petitioner introduced a passenger booking fee to absorb new statutory VAT expenses introduced by the Finance Act 2022, and platform development costs without increasing driver commissions, NTSA banned the fee. That this restrictive pricing structure caused the Petitioner up to an 8% loss in total revenue for over two years.
13. It is deposed that Regulation 17 mandates that Transport Network Companies collect and store detailed trip and personal data, including driver/passenger IDs, locations and payment methods, for three years and hand it over to NTSA upon demand without establishing clear consent protocols or adhering to data minimization principles.
14. That the NTSA Act, 2012 only empowers NTSA to regulate road safety, vehicle licensing and driver testing. It is stated that by creating a brand-new licensing regime for digital platforms, imposing unique operational rules and requiring TNCs to report severe accidents within 24 hours, despite not being transport providers, NTSA the 2 nd Respondent herein acted beyond its statutory mandate and usurped Parliament's legislative powers under Articles 94(5) and 186(4).
15. The deponent asserts that under the Fourth Schedule and Articles 6 and 189 of the Constitution , local public road transport, taxis, and parking fall under county government authority. That centralizing TNCs licensing at the national level infringes on county mandate and revenues without proper intergovernmental consultation.
16. Finally, the deponent states that Regulations 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 impose disproportionate compliance, data-sharing and licensing burdens on digital platform providers compared to traditional taxis and public service vehicles, thereby creating an unequal and unjustified regulatory framework. The deponent urges that Court declares the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 to be unconstitutional, null, and void, and prohibit the Respondents from enforcing them.
Responses
17. In response to the Petition, the 2 nd Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by Mr. George Njao, the Director General of the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA), dated 7 th August 2025 in which he states that NTSA is a state corporation established under the National Transport and Safety Authority Act No. 33 of 2012 to plan, manage, and regulate Kenya’s road transport system while ensuring public road safety through measures like professional driver training.
18. He points out that prior to formulating the NTSA (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, the digital taxi sector was completely unregulated, which caused widespread unrest and disorder across the industry.
19. Addressing the procedural challenges raised by the Petitioner, the deponent asserts that NTSA conducted extensive nationwide public participation before finalizing the rules. He details that NTSA held various consultative meetings with industry stakeholders, including representatives of the Petitioner, published newspaper public notices, made the draft regulations available on its website and collected feedback across all forty-seven counties.
20. That following this process, the draft regulations and Explanatory Memorandum were forwarded to the Cabinet Secretary for transmission to both houses of Parliament, where they were presented to the Delegated Legislation Committees pursuant to the Statutory Instruments Act.
21. The deponent rejects the Petitioner’s allegations regarding lack of public participation as dishonest and baseless, arguing that the Petition itself is incompetent for failing to demonstrate any specific constitutional violations. He concludes that granting the orders sought by the Petitioner would cause great prejudice to NTSA and the public by nullifying properly formulated regulations that have successfully streamlined digital taxi operations in Kenya.
22. The 3 rd Respondent, the National Assembly of Kenya filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by Mr. Samuel Njoroge, the Clerk of the National Assembly, dated 10 th April 2025 opposing both the Notice of Motion and the Petition dated 28 th February 2025. He outlines the legislative context and parliamentary oversight procedures surrounding statutory instruments under the Constitution and the Statutory Instruments Act, 2013 and explains that while Article 94(5) grants Parliament exclusive law-making authority, it permits the delegation of legislative powers to government agencies, with Section 54 of the NTSA Act empowering the Cabinet Secretary for Roads and Transport to make regulations.
23. Regarding procedural compliance, he states that conducting public participation is legally the responsibility of the regulation-making authority (NTSA) rather than the National Assembly. He notes that the House’s role is to verify compliance, which its Committee on Delegated Legislation fulfilled before officially approving the regulations on 28 th February 2023.
24. Addressing the Petitioner’s claim that the regulations unlawfully took effect prior to parliamentary approval, the deponent explains that under Section 23 of the Statutory Instruments Act , regulations take effect upon gazettement unless the enabling Act explicitly conditions their commencement on prior parliamentary approval. That because Section 54 of the NTSA Act contains no such restriction, the 2022 Regulations legally came into force upon publication on 1 st July 2022. He adds that although the regulations were transmitted on 20 th July 2022, during the sine die recess of the 12 th Parliament, they were properly tabled on 4 th October 2022, the earliest opportunity after the 13 th Parliament commenced and the statutory counting days began once the new committee was constituted on 27 th October 2022.
25. Consequently, it is deposed that the National Assembly acted strictly within its constitutional and statutory mandate, maintaining that the regulation-making authority exercised its powers within legal boundaries.
26. The Petition was canvassed by written submissions.
Submissions
27. The Petitioner’s written submissions are dated 30 th October 2025 in which Counsel isolates the following issues for determination:
i. Whether the NTSA Regulations did not undergo meaningful public participation as mandated by Articles 10, 93 (2), 118 (1) (b), and 186 (4) of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act (Chapter 2A, Laws of Kenya) (the SI Act);
ii. Whether the NTSA Regulations conflict with the devolved functions of the county government contrary to Articles 6(2) and 189(1) and (2) of the Constitution; and
iii. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought .
28. The Petitioner submits through counsel that the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 (the NTSA Regulations) are unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void for failing to comply with mandatory constitutional and statutory processes. Central to this argument is the alleged violation of Articles 10, 93(2), 94(5), 95(2), 118(1)(b), and 186(4) of the Constitution , along with Sections 5, 6, 10, 11(1)&(2), 13, 22, and 24(2) of the Statutory Instruments Act, 2013 (Cap 2A).
29. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned Regulations introduced entirely new and material compliance burdens, such as mandatory local incorporation, an 18% commission cap, extended data disclosure obligations and a reduced 90-day transition timeline, that were never subjected to fresh, meaningful public participation.
30. In support of its position on public participation and consultation standards, Counsel relies on British American Tobacco Kenya PLC v Cabinet Secretary for the Ministry of Health & 2 others; Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance & another (Interested Parties); Mastermind Tobacco Kenya Limited (Affected Party) [2019] KESC 15 (KLR) and Truckers Association of Kenya v County Government of Machakos [2020] KEHC 5349 (KLR) .
31. The Petitioner further cites Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority; Proto Energy Limited (Ex parte) [2022] KEHC 5 (KLR) and submits that it had a legitimate expectation following assurances by regulators that further consultations would occur. They submit that the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents failed to prepare a mandatory Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) as required by Section 6 of the Statutory Instruments Act , citing the case of Matindi v Cabinet Secretary, National Treasury & Planning & 4 others [2023] KEHC 1144 (KLR).
32. Counsel also highlights that the impugned Regulations unlawfully came into operation on 1 st July 2022, prior to being laid before and approval by Parliament in October 2022, thereby breaching Section 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act and Article 94(5) of the Constitution , invoking Otieno & another v Council of Legal Education [2021] KECA 349 (KLR).
33. On the second issue, Counsel submits that the legislative process behind the regulations infringed the constitutional principles of devolution and bicameralism. Relying on Articles 6(2), 110, 112, 186(4), and 189 of the Constitution , as well as Paragraph 18 of Part 1 and Paragraph 5 of Part 2 of the Fourth Schedule , the Petitioner argues that public road transport and traffic management are devolved functions under county governments.
34. It is their submissions that because the impugned Regulations directly impact county transport operations, their failure to undergo Senate involvement and county consultation renders them procedurally defective and unconstitutional, a principle supported by Kenya Driving Schools Association v National Transport and Safety Authority & 3 others; National Assembly & another (Interested Parties) [2022] KEHC 78 (KLR) .
35. Counsel for the Petitioner further argues that Regulation 9(1)(g) and 9(3), which caps platform commissions to 18%, constitute an arbitrary deprivation of property, goodwill, intellectual property and revenue in direct violation of Article 40(2) and (3) of the Constitution, Section 21 of the Competition Act (Cap 504), and the Consumer Protection Act (Cap 501) .
36. To support the argument that the state intervention limiting commercial proceeds and ownership entitlements amounts to an unconstitutional deprivation, the Petitioner’s Counsel cites the South African Constitutional Court decisions in South African Diamond Producers Organisation v Minister of Minerals and Energy N.O. and Others [2017] ZACC 26, Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd [2010] ZACC 20, and First National Bank of SA Ltd t/a Wesbank v Commissioner, South African Revenue Service; First National Bank of SA Ltd t/a Wesbank v Minister of Finance [2002] ZACC 5 .
37. Counsel for the Petitioner further challenges Regulations 11(e) and 17 , which mandate the retention of sensitive customer and driver data for three years and compels immediate disclosure to regulators upon request, as a direct infringement of the right to privacy under Article 31(c) and (d) of the Constitution and Sections 2 and 25(d) of the Data Protection Act, 2019 (Cap 411C) . They maintain that such blanket surveillance powers are unsupported by the enabling statute, unjustified under Article 24 of the Constitution, and disproportionate. Counsel relies on the case of Kandie v Alassane BA & another [2017] KESC 13 (KLR), CMM (Suing as the Next of Friend of and on Behalf of CWM) & 6 others v Standard Group & 4 others [2023] KESC 68 (KLR), and Kenya Human Rights Commission v Communications Authority of Kenya & 4 others [2018] KEHC 7494 (KLR) .
38. Relying on Mutua & 2 others v Ndeti & another [2018] KESC 1 (KLR), Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned Regulations are ultra vires by introducing new licensing frameworks and shifting statutory police duties onto private platforms, which is in conflict with Sections 4(2), 27(1), 42, and 54 of the National Transport and Safety Authority Act, 2012, and the Traffic Act (Cap 403).
39. Further submission is that the impugned Regulations unlawfully discriminate against ride-hailing platforms compared to traditional Public Service Vehicle (PSV) operators, in breach of Articles 10(1)(c), 10(2)(b), and 27 of the Constitution, and cites Gichuru v Package Insurance Brokers Ltd [2021] KESC 12 (KLR) and Rockland Kenya Limited v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Mining & another [2023] KEHC 17264 (KLR) and prayed for conservatory orders, prohibition, and constitutional remedies under Articles 21, 22, 23, and 165(3)(d) of the Constitution .
The 2 nd Respondent’s - National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) Submissions
40. The 2 nd Respondent’s written submissions are dated 19 th April 2026 , framing four issues for determination:
i. Whether there was adequate public participation in the enactment of the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, owners, Drivers and Passengers) Regulations 2022;
ii. Whether the said Regulations violate Article 46 of the Constitution;
iii. Whether the process leading to the enactment of the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 contravened Article 94 and 114 of the Constitution and
iv. Whether an order in the nature of prohibition should be issued against the 2 nd Respondent from implementing the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 and regulations made pursuant to the said amendments.
41. Counsel for the 2 nd Respondent contends that it conducted robust, extensive and nationwide public participation regarding the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022, and that it made direct invitations, undertook stakeholder meetings involving the Petitioner’s officials and issued public notices in widely circulated national newspapers.
42. The 2 nd Respondent’s Counsel submits that under Section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act (No. 23 of 2013), Parliament , both the National Assembly and the Senate verified that public participation met the required threshold prior to approving the statutory instrument, the impugned Regulations.
43. On the standard and sufficiency of public participation, the 2 nd Respondent relies on Okiya Omtatah Okoiti & 4 Others v Attorney General & 5 Others; Council of Governors & 4 Others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR (Nairobi High Court Constitutional and Human Rights Petition No. 163 of 2019) and submitted that reasonableness depends on the context and that publishing legislative proposals in advance provides adequate public notice.
44. Regarding the alleged constitutional violations under Article 46 on consumer rights, Counsel for the 2 nd Respondent submits that the Petitioner failed to specify the precise constitutional breaches or show how its rights were directly infringed. Counsel argues that statutory claims cannot be conflated with constitutional violations and points out that NTSA acted strictly within its assigned statutory mandate under Section 119(g) of the Traffic Act and the National Transport and Safety Authority Act (No. 33 of 2012) to manage, plan and regulate road transport.
45. On the requirement that constitutional petitions and alleged violations must strictly be precise, the 2 nd Respondent relies on Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] eKLR 54 (Nairobi Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 4 of 1979), Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 Others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 Others [2014] eKLR (Supreme Court Petition No. 14 of 2014), Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others [2013] eKLR (Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2012), and Alice Muthoni Wahome v Attorney General & 2 Others [2021] eKLR (Nairobi Constitutional and Human Rights Petition No. E277 of 2020).
46. Further reliance was placed on Advanced Gaming Limited v Betting Control and Licensing Board & 2 Others; Safaricom Limited (Interested Party) [2019] eKLR (Nairobi High Court Constitutional and Human Rights Petition No. 271 of 2019), to support the argument that courts will not interfere with administrative decisions that remain within statutory boundaries.
47. Addressing the legislative procedure under Articles 94, 114, and 95 of the Constitution, the 2 nd Respondent submits that all acts of Parliament and subsidiary legislation carry a general presumption of constitutionality and that the National Assembly exercised its lawful legislative authority. Counsel submits that the Petitioner misapplied Speaker of the National Assembly & Another v Senate & 12 Others [2021] eKLR (Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. E084 of 2021), as the process did not concern a money bill.
48. Finally, the 2 nd Respondent submits through Counsel that an order of prohibition cannot issue against it. It argues that prohibition is purely prospective and cannot quash or reverse decisions, regulations, or statutory amendments that have already been enacted, gazetted and implemented across the industry. To support this limitation on judicial review remedies, Counsel relies on Kenya National Examinations Council v Republic ex-parte Geoffrey Githinji Njoroge & 9 Others [1997] eKLR (Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 266 of 1996) and prays that the Petition be dismissed with costs.
The 3 rd Respondent’s - The National Assembly - Submissions
49. The 3 rd Respondent’s written submissions are dated 20 th April 2026 . Four issues are framed as follows:
i. Whether the Regulations were enacted procedurally;
ii. Whether the Court should interfere with policy decisions of the Executive and the Legislature;
iii. Whether the limitation of property and privacy rights is justifiable in the public interest; and
iv. Whether the Court should issue an appropriate remedy in the event it finds merit in the Petition.
50. Counsel for the 3 rd Respondent submits that the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 (Legal Notice No. 120 of 2022) were procedurally enacted in full compliance with Articles 94, 94(5) and 94(6) of the Constitution, Section 54 of the National Transport and Safety Authority Act, 2012, and Sections 5, 11, 12, 13 and 23 of the Statutory Instruments Act, 2013 .
51. Counsel submits that the Cabinet Secretary published the Regulations on 20 th June 2022, during the sine die recess of the 12 th Parliament and following the inauguration of the 13 th Parliament on 29 September 2022, the Regulations were properly transmitted and tabled on 4 th October 2022. It is submitted that the impugned Regulations were subsequently committed to the National Assembly Committee on Delegated Legislation, which was established on 27 th October 2022, subjected to statutory scrutiny under Section 13 and officially approved via a resolution conveyed on 6 th March 2023, under Standing Order 210(4).
52. Counsel for the 3 rd Respondent emphasizes that the primary obligation to conduct public participation under Article 118 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act rested with the regulation -making authority, the 1 st R
[...truncated]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CONSTITUTIONAL & HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITION NO. E101 OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 1, 2, (3) (b) & 4 (a), 10, 20 (1), 21, 22 (1) & (2) (c) AND 23, 31,40 & 40 (2) (a), 94 (1) & (5), 95 (2), 118 (1) (b), 124 (1), 165(3)(d) (I) & (ii), 186, 258 (1), (2) (c) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF CONTRAVENTION OF ARTICLES 10(2)(b), 27 (1) & (4), 31(c) (d), 40(2)(3), 47, 48, 94 (1) & (5), 95 (2), 159 (2) (c), 186 (4), 258 & 259, 232 and FOURTH SCHEDULE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORT AND SAFETY AUTHORITY ACT, 2012
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORT AND SAFETY AUTHORITY (TRANSPORT NETWORK COMPANIES, OWNERS, DRIVERS, AND PASSENGERS) REGULATIONS, 2022
AND
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS IN KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ACT, 2015
AND
IN THE MATTER OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS ACT, 2013
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT, 2019
AND
IN THE MATTER OF COMPETITION ACT, 2010
BETWEEN
BOLT OPERATIONS OÜ ........................................................ PETITIONER
AND
THE CABINET SECRETARY
FOR ROADS AND TRANSPORT.................................... 1 ST RESPONDENT
THE NATIONAL TRANSPORT
& SAFETY AUTHORITY.................................................2 ND RESPONDENT
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ........................................ 3 RD RESPONDENT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ........................................ 4 TH RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner, Bolt Operations OÜ, is described as an Estonian digital platform connecting independent drivers with passengers. It filed the present Petition challenging the constitutionality and validity of the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022, against the Cabinet Secretary for Roads and Transport, the NTSA, the National Assembly, and the Attorney General.
2. The Petitioner avers that the regulations which mandate a Transport Network License, strict operational and data-sharing obligations and a hard 18% cap on driver commissions were enacted through a procedurally flawed process. Specifically, that the regulations failed to undergo mandatory public participation, lacked a required Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) despite causing severe economic distortions and that the impugned Regulations came into force before being properly tabled or reviewed by Parliament during its 2022 election recess.
3. Essentially, the Petitioner asserts that the Regulations violate multiple constitutional rights, statutory provisions and institutional boundaries. The Petitioner asserts that the 18% commission cap and banned booking fees infringe on property rights under Article 40 and distorts fair competition, that mandatory data retention breaches user privacy rights under Article 31 and the Data Protection Act 2019 and that centralizing platform licensing encroaches upon devolved county transport functions.
4. Further, the Petitioner claims that the NTSA acted ultra vires by exceeding its statutory road safety mandate to impose price controls, administrative burdens and discriminatory regulations solely on digital platforms while excluding traditional taxis. Consequently, it seeks a declaration that the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 are null and void, along with an order prohibiting their enforcement.
5. The Petition dated 28 th February 2025 seeks the following reliefs: -
(1) This Honourable Court be pleased to hold and declare that the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 are unlawful, unconstitutional, and contravene the provisions of Articles 10, 93 (2), 94 (5), 95(2), and 118 (1) (b), 186 (4) of the constitution for failing to comply with the national values of inclusiveness, openness, transparency, and public participation and are inconsistent with the mandatory process for the making of statutory instruments under Sections 10, 11, (1) and (2) and 22 of the Statutory Instruments Act.
(2) This Honourable Court be pleased to hold and declare that the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 are unlawful, unconstitutional, null, and void as they introduce regulations that conflict with the devolved functions of the county government contrary to Articles 6 and 189 of the Constitution.
(3) This Honourable Court be pleased to hold and declare that the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 are unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void as they impose novel obligations on transport network companies contrary to the legislative mandate of Parliament set out in Articles 94 (1), (5), 95 (2) and 186 (4) of the Constitution and are ultra vires to the mandate of the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents’ mandate under Sections 4 (2) and 54 of the National Transport and Safety Authority Act.
(4) This Honourable Court be pleased to hold and declare that the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 are unlawful, unconstitutional, null, and void as they infringe on the Petitioner's to equal protection and benefit from the law and protection from discrimination; and contravene the provisions of Articles 10(1)(c), 10(2)(b) and 27 of the Constitution.
(5) This Honourable Court be pleased to hold and declare that the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 are unlawful, unconstitutional, and invalid as they infringe on the Petitioner's obligations of privacy under Article 31(c) and (d) of the Constitution and Section 25 of the Data Protection Act.
(6) This Honourable Court be pleased to hold and declare that the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 unlawful, unconstitutional, null, and void as they infringe on the Petitioner's right to property; and contravene the provisions of Article 40(2) (3) of the Constitution.
(7) An order of prohibition be and is hereby issued restraining the 1 st and 2 nd Petitioners, their agents, employees, and servants, from further implementation, administration, application, and or/enforcement of the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022.
(8) The costs consequent upon this Petition be provided for.
(9) Any other remedy or such other orders as this Honourable Court may deem just and expedient in the circumstances to remedy the violation of the Petitioner's fundamental constitutional rights and freedoms.
6. The Petition is premised on the facts on the face of it and further supported by the affidavit of Demetrius Winston Kanyankole sworn on 28 th February 2025 in which he introduces Bolt Operations OÜ as an Estonian information society provider operating the digital ride-hailing app ‘Bolt’ and ‘Bolt Food’ in Kenya and clarifies that Bolt functions purely as an intermediary connecting independent drivers (Transport Network Drivers/TNDs) with passengers (Transport Network Passengers/TNPs). He avers that Bolt does not own the vehicles or employ the drivers; rather, drivers maintain operational autonomy and Bolt earns revenue through a percentage commission on fares to support and develop its platform infrastructure.
7. The deponent details a long timeline of regulatory engagements between 2019 and 2022, during which multiple draft instruments were proposed, including the 2019 NTSA Regulations, the 2020 Traffic Rules and subsequent draft rules developed in consultation with stakeholders and a World Bank consultant. He deposes that, however, without notice or public consultation on the final draft Regulations, the 1 st Respondent published the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 under Legal Notice 120 of 2022 on 20 th June 2022 , gazetting them on 1 st July 2022, the same day they came into force.
8. The deponent avers that there were several procedural and statutory flaws surrounding the enactment process. He pleads that the specific National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 were never subjected to public or stakeholder consultation prior to gazettement, breaching Articles 10 and 118 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act (SI Act).
9. Secondly, that the Respondents failed to prepare or gazette a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) as mandated by Sections 6, 8, and 9 of the Statutory Instruments Act , despite the severe operational and economic impact on ride-hailing businesses. That while state officials verbally acknowledged this omission during a December 2023 meeting, no Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) was ever finalized.
10. He swears that the 90-day transitional compliance window granted to existing ride-hailing operators expired on 29 th September 2022, the very first day the 13 th Parliament sat following its election recess, meaning, operators were forced to comply with the impugned gazetted Regulations before the Regulations were formally tabled in Parliament on 4 th October 2022, or approved by 28 th February 2023.
11. The deponent also swears that the Petition challenges the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 across several key constitutional and legal grounds being: infringement on Property Rights and Contractual Autonomy under Article 40) and Regulations 9(1)(g) and 19(3) cap commission rates payable by drivers to Transport Network Companies (TNCs) at 18%.
12. The deponent states that this arbitrary price control interferes with commercial contracts, prevents market differentiation and distorts fair competition under Section 21 of the Competition Act, 2010 . Further, that when the Petitioner introduced a passenger booking fee to absorb new statutory VAT expenses introduced by the Finance Act 2022, and platform development costs without increasing driver commissions, NTSA banned the fee. That this restrictive pricing structure caused the Petitioner up to an 8% loss in total revenue for over two years.
13. It is deposed that Regulation 17 mandates that Transport Network Companies collect and store detailed trip and personal data, including driver/passenger IDs, locations and payment methods, for three years and hand it over to NTSA upon demand without establishing clear consent protocols or adhering to data minimization principles.
14. That the NTSA Act, 2012 only empowers NTSA to regulate road safety, vehicle licensing and driver testing. It is stated that by creating a brand-new licensing regime for digital platforms, imposing unique operational rules and requiring TNCs to report severe accidents within 24 hours, despite not being transport providers, NTSA the 2 nd Respondent herein acted beyond its statutory mandate and usurped Parliament's legislative powers under Articles 94(5) and 186(4).
15. The deponent asserts that under the Fourth Schedule and Articles 6 and 189 of the Constitution , local public road transport, taxis, and parking fall under county government authority. That centralizing TNCs licensing at the national level infringes on county mandate and revenues without proper intergovernmental consultation.
16. Finally, the deponent states that Regulations 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 impose disproportionate compliance, data-sharing and licensing burdens on digital platform providers compared to traditional taxis and public service vehicles, thereby creating an unequal and unjustified regulatory framework. The deponent urges that Court declares the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 to be unconstitutional, null, and void, and prohibit the Respondents from enforcing them.
Responses
17. In response to the Petition, the 2 nd Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by Mr. George Njao, the Director General of the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA), dated 7 th August 2025 in which he states that NTSA is a state corporation established under the National Transport and Safety Authority Act No. 33 of 2012 to plan, manage, and regulate Kenya’s road transport system while ensuring public road safety through measures like professional driver training.
18. He points out that prior to formulating the NTSA (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, the digital taxi sector was completely unregulated, which caused widespread unrest and disorder across the industry.
19. Addressing the procedural challenges raised by the Petitioner, the deponent asserts that NTSA conducted extensive nationwide public participation before finalizing the rules. He details that NTSA held various consultative meetings with industry stakeholders, including representatives of the Petitioner, published newspaper public notices, made the draft regulations available on its website and collected feedback across all forty-seven counties.
20. That following this process, the draft regulations and Explanatory Memorandum were forwarded to the Cabinet Secretary for transmission to both houses of Parliament, where they were presented to the Delegated Legislation Committees pursuant to the Statutory Instruments Act.
21. The deponent rejects the Petitioner’s allegations regarding lack of public participation as dishonest and baseless, arguing that the Petition itself is incompetent for failing to demonstrate any specific constitutional violations. He concludes that granting the orders sought by the Petitioner would cause great prejudice to NTSA and the public by nullifying properly formulated regulations that have successfully streamlined digital taxi operations in Kenya.
22. The 3 rd Respondent, the National Assembly of Kenya filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by Mr. Samuel Njoroge, the Clerk of the National Assembly, dated 10 th April 2025 opposing both the Notice of Motion and the Petition dated 28 th February 2025. He outlines the legislative context and parliamentary oversight procedures surrounding statutory instruments under the Constitution and the Statutory Instruments Act, 2013 and explains that while Article 94(5) grants Parliament exclusive law-making authority, it permits the delegation of legislative powers to government agencies, with Section 54 of the NTSA Act empowering the Cabinet Secretary for Roads and Transport to make regulations.
23. Regarding procedural compliance, he states that conducting public participation is legally the responsibility of the regulation-making authority (NTSA) rather than the National Assembly. He notes that the House’s role is to verify compliance, which its Committee on Delegated Legislation fulfilled before officially approving the regulations on 28 th February 2023.
24. Addressing the Petitioner’s claim that the regulations unlawfully took effect prior to parliamentary approval, the deponent explains that under Section 23 of the Statutory Instruments Act , regulations take effect upon gazettement unless the enabling Act explicitly conditions their commencement on prior parliamentary approval. That because Section 54 of the NTSA Act contains no such restriction, the 2022 Regulations legally came into force upon publication on 1 st July 2022. He adds that although the regulations were transmitted on 20 th July 2022, during the sine die recess of the 12 th Parliament, they were properly tabled on 4 th October 2022, the earliest opportunity after the 13 th Parliament commenced and the statutory counting days began once the new committee was constituted on 27 th October 2022.
25. Consequently, it is deposed that the National Assembly acted strictly within its constitutional and statutory mandate, maintaining that the regulation-making authority exercised its powers within legal boundaries.
26. The Petition was canvassed by written submissions.
Submissions
27. The Petitioner’s written submissions are dated 30 th October 2025 in which Counsel isolates the following issues for determination:
i. Whether the NTSA Regulations did not undergo meaningful public participation as mandated by Articles 10, 93 (2), 118 (1) (b), and 186 (4) of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act (Chapter 2A, Laws of Kenya) (the SI Act);
ii. Whether the NTSA Regulations conflict with the devolved functions of the county government contrary to Articles 6(2) and 189(1) and (2) of the Constitution; and
iii. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought .
28. The Petitioner submits through counsel that the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 (the NTSA Regulations) are unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void for failing to comply with mandatory constitutional and statutory processes. Central to this argument is the alleged violation of Articles 10, 93(2), 94(5), 95(2), 118(1)(b), and 186(4) of the Constitution , along with Sections 5, 6, 10, 11(1)&(2), 13, 22, and 24(2) of the Statutory Instruments Act, 2013 (Cap 2A).
29. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned Regulations introduced entirely new and material compliance burdens, such as mandatory local incorporation, an 18% commission cap, extended data disclosure obligations and a reduced 90-day transition timeline, that were never subjected to fresh, meaningful public participation.
30. In support of its position on public participation and consultation standards, Counsel relies on British American Tobacco Kenya PLC v Cabinet Secretary for the Ministry of Health & 2 others; Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance & another (Interested Parties); Mastermind Tobacco Kenya Limited (Affected Party) [2019] KESC 15 (KLR) and Truckers Association of Kenya v County Government of Machakos [2020] KEHC 5349 (KLR) .
31. The Petitioner further cites Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority; Proto Energy Limited (Ex parte) [2022] KEHC 5 (KLR) and submits that it had a legitimate expectation following assurances by regulators that further consultations would occur. They submit that the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents failed to prepare a mandatory Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) as required by Section 6 of the Statutory Instruments Act , citing the case of Matindi v Cabinet Secretary, National Treasury & Planning & 4 others [2023] KEHC 1144 (KLR).
32. Counsel also highlights that the impugned Regulations unlawfully came into operation on 1 st July 2022, prior to being laid before and approval by Parliament in October 2022, thereby breaching Section 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act and Article 94(5) of the Constitution , invoking Otieno & another v Council of Legal Education [2021] KECA 349 (KLR).
33. On the second issue, Counsel submits that the legislative process behind the regulations infringed the constitutional principles of devolution and bicameralism. Relying on Articles 6(2), 110, 112, 186(4), and 189 of the Constitution , as well as Paragraph 18 of Part 1 and Paragraph 5 of Part 2 of the Fourth Schedule , the Petitioner argues that public road transport and traffic management are devolved functions under county governments.
34. It is their submissions that because the impugned Regulations directly impact county transport operations, their failure to undergo Senate involvement and county consultation renders them procedurally defective and unconstitutional, a principle supported by Kenya Driving Schools Association v National Transport and Safety Authority & 3 others; National Assembly & another (Interested Parties) [2022] KEHC 78 (KLR) .
35. Counsel for the Petitioner further argues that Regulation 9(1)(g) and 9(3), which caps platform commissions to 18%, constitute an arbitrary deprivation of property, goodwill, intellectual property and revenue in direct violation of Article 40(2) and (3) of the Constitution, Section 21 of the Competition Act (Cap 504), and the Consumer Protection Act (Cap 501) .
36. To support the argument that the state intervention limiting commercial proceeds and ownership entitlements amounts to an unconstitutional deprivation, the Petitioner’s Counsel cites the South African Constitutional Court decisions in South African Diamond Producers Organisation v Minister of Minerals and Energy N.O. and Others [2017] ZACC 26, Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd [2010] ZACC 20, and First National Bank of SA Ltd t/a Wesbank v Commissioner, South African Revenue Service; First National Bank of SA Ltd t/a Wesbank v Minister of Finance [2002] ZACC 5 .
37. Counsel for the Petitioner further challenges Regulations 11(e) and 17 , which mandate the retention of sensitive customer and driver data for three years and compels immediate disclosure to regulators upon request, as a direct infringement of the right to privacy under Article 31(c) and (d) of the Constitution and Sections 2 and 25(d) of the Data Protection Act, 2019 (Cap 411C) . They maintain that such blanket surveillance powers are unsupported by the enabling statute, unjustified under Article 24 of the Constitution, and disproportionate. Counsel relies on the case of Kandie v Alassane BA & another [2017] KESC 13 (KLR), CMM (Suing as the Next of Friend of and on Behalf of CWM) & 6 others v Standard Group & 4 others [2023] KESC 68 (KLR), and Kenya Human Rights Commission v Communications Authority of Kenya & 4 others [2018] KEHC 7494 (KLR) .
38. Relying on Mutua & 2 others v Ndeti & another [2018] KESC 1 (KLR), Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned Regulations are ultra vires by introducing new licensing frameworks and shifting statutory police duties onto private platforms, which is in conflict with Sections 4(2), 27(1), 42, and 54 of the National Transport and Safety Authority Act, 2012, and the Traffic Act (Cap 403).
39. Further submission is that the impugned Regulations unlawfully discriminate against ride-hailing platforms compared to traditional Public Service Vehicle (PSV) operators, in breach of Articles 10(1)(c), 10(2)(b), and 27 of the Constitution, and cites Gichuru v Package Insurance Brokers Ltd [2021] KESC 12 (KLR) and Rockland Kenya Limited v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Mining & another [2023] KEHC 17264 (KLR) and prayed for conservatory orders, prohibition, and constitutional remedies under Articles 21, 22, 23, and 165(3)(d) of the Constitution .
The 2 nd Respondent’s - National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) Submissions
40. The 2 nd Respondent’s written submissions are dated 19 th April 2026 , framing four issues for determination:
i. Whether there was adequate public participation in the enactment of the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, owners, Drivers and Passengers) Regulations 2022;
ii. Whether the said Regulations violate Article 46 of the Constitution;
iii. Whether the process leading to the enactment of the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 contravened Article 94 and 114 of the Constitution and
iv. Whether an order in the nature of prohibition should be issued against the 2 nd Respondent from implementing the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 and regulations made pursuant to the said amendments.
41. Counsel for the 2 nd Respondent contends that it conducted robust, extensive and nationwide public participation regarding the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022, and that it made direct invitations, undertook stakeholder meetings involving the Petitioner’s officials and issued public notices in widely circulated national newspapers.
42. The 2 nd Respondent’s Counsel submits that under Section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act (No. 23 of 2013), Parliament , both the National Assembly and the Senate verified that public participation met the required threshold prior to approving the statutory instrument, the impugned Regulations.
43. On the standard and sufficiency of public participation, the 2 nd Respondent relies on Okiya Omtatah Okoiti & 4 Others v Attorney General & 5 Others; Council of Governors & 4 Others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR (Nairobi High Court Constitutional and Human Rights Petition No. 163 of 2019) and submitted that reasonableness depends on the context and that publishing legislative proposals in advance provides adequate public notice.
44. Regarding the alleged constitutional violations under Article 46 on consumer rights, Counsel for the 2 nd Respondent submits that the Petitioner failed to specify the precise constitutional breaches or show how its rights were directly infringed. Counsel argues that statutory claims cannot be conflated with constitutional violations and points out that NTSA acted strictly within its assigned statutory mandate under Section 119(g) of the Traffic Act and the National Transport and Safety Authority Act (No. 33 of 2012) to manage, plan and regulate road transport.
45. On the requirement that constitutional petitions and alleged violations must strictly be precise, the 2 nd Respondent relies on Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] eKLR 54 (Nairobi Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 4 of 1979), Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 Others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 Others [2014] eKLR (Supreme Court Petition No. 14 of 2014), Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others [2013] eKLR (Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2012), and Alice Muthoni Wahome v Attorney General & 2 Others [2021] eKLR (Nairobi Constitutional and Human Rights Petition No. E277 of 2020).
46. Further reliance was placed on Advanced Gaming Limited v Betting Control and Licensing Board & 2 Others; Safaricom Limited (Interested Party) [2019] eKLR (Nairobi High Court Constitutional and Human Rights Petition No. 271 of 2019), to support the argument that courts will not interfere with administrative decisions that remain within statutory boundaries.
47. Addressing the legislative procedure under Articles 94, 114, and 95 of the Constitution, the 2 nd Respondent submits that all acts of Parliament and subsidiary legislation carry a general presumption of constitutionality and that the National Assembly exercised its lawful legislative authority. Counsel submits that the Petitioner misapplied Speaker of the National Assembly & Another v Senate & 12 Others [2021] eKLR (Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. E084 of 2021), as the process did not concern a money bill.
48. Finally, the 2 nd Respondent submits through Counsel that an order of prohibition cannot issue against it. It argues that prohibition is purely prospective and cannot quash or reverse decisions, regulations, or statutory amendments that have already been enacted, gazetted and implemented across the industry. To support this limitation on judicial review remedies, Counsel relies on Kenya National Examinations Council v Republic ex-parte Geoffrey Githinji Njoroge & 9 Others [1997] eKLR (Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 266 of 1996) and prays that the Petition be dismissed with costs.
The 3 rd Respondent’s - The National Assembly - Submissions
49. The 3 rd Respondent’s written submissions are dated 20 th April 2026 . Four issues are framed as follows:
i. Whether the Regulations were enacted procedurally;
ii. Whether the Court should interfere with policy decisions of the Executive and the Legislature;
iii. Whether the limitation of property and privacy rights is justifiable in the public interest; and
iv. Whether the Court should issue an appropriate remedy in the event it finds merit in the Petition.
50. Counsel for the 3 rd Respondent submits that the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers, and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 (Legal Notice No. 120 of 2022) were procedurally enacted in full compliance with Articles 94, 94(5) and 94(6) of the Constitution, Section 54 of the National Transport and Safety Authority Act, 2012, and Sections 5, 11, 12, 13 and 23 of the Statutory Instruments Act, 2013 .
51. Counsel submits that the Cabinet Secretary published the Regulations on 20 th June 2022, during the sine die recess of the 12 th Parliament and following the inauguration of the 13 th Parliament on 29 September 2022, the Regulations were properly transmitted and tabled on 4 th October 2022. It is submitted that the impugned Regulations were subsequently committed to the National Assembly Committee on Delegated Legislation, which was established on 27 th October 2022, subjected to statutory scrutiny under Section 13 and officially approved via a resolution conveyed on 6 th March 2023, under Standing Order 210(4).
52. Counsel for the 3 rd Respondent emphasizes that the primary obligation to conduct public participation under Article 118 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act rested with the regulation -making authority, the 1 st R
[...truncated]