A. Background to the petition
1. The petitioners are the registered owners of a semi-truck, Isuzu FVZ registration No. KDN 093C and a trailer registration No. ZH2648 (herein referred to as the motor vehicle). The motor vehicle is jointly owned with Sidian Bank Limited, the financiers. On 6th February 2024, the motor vehicle, while transporting sand, was detained by the respondent’s officials under the provisions of the East African Community Vehicle Local Act, 2016 (hereinafter EACVLCA) and East African Community Vehicle Local Control (Enforcement Measures) Regulations, 2028 (hereinafter Regulations, 2018). The circumstances leading to the detention are in dispute between the parties in this petition.
2. On 9th May 2024, this Court (Olel J) granted the petitioners a mandatory injunction directed at the respondent to release the motor vehicle, after offloading the excess weight in the presence of the parties’ representatives. This order was subject to the petitioners depositing Kshs. 500,000.000 as security and upon giving a written irrevocable undertaking not to either remove the motor vehicle from the jurisdiction of this court or to lease, and/or dispose of it during the pendency of this petition.
B. Petitioners’ Case
3. By a petition dated 15th March 2024, the petitioners challenge the interception, arrest and detention of their motor vehicle by the respondent’s officials as well as the charge of Kshs 28,947, 891.951as a fee for overloading under the EACVLCA and Regulations, 2018. They contend that this action flouted the Traffic Act, which was the applicable law to the prevailing circumstances, thus is illegal, constitutes an overreach by the respondent’s supervisory authority, and therefore violated their constitutional property rights.
4. The petitioners aver that on 6th February 2024, their driver, one Jahaziel Mwangi Maina, was transporting sand from Mashuru in Kajiado County and was destined for Malili within Makueni County. Upon passing Petro City Petroleum depot, at around 2.00 am, the respondent’s officials flagged the motor vehicle on Ulu Road, Makueni. Further, it is their case that their driver stopped on the perception that it was a routine check. However, the respondent’s officials, despite the driver's protests, seized the motor vehicle, bundled the driver into their patrol vehicle, and took charge, only for the driver to see it while being driven to the Mlolongo Weighbridge Station at 6:30 am. The petitioners also argue that their driver noticed a disparity in the load at interception and after the officials drove it into the station. They contend that the respondent weighed the motor vehicle; assessed it as overloaded; and charged a fee of Kshs 28,947,891.951, in clear breach of procedural propriety and rules of natural justice. The petitioners particularly take issue with the respondent’s seizure of the motor vehicle for almost six hours, denying their driver the right to monitor the motor vehicle from the point of detention to the Weighing bridge.
5. It is also asserted that even in the event the motor vehicle was overloaded, which the petitioners dispute, there was a legitimate expectation that the purported offence would be governed by the Traffic Act and not under EACVLCA. To support this assertion, the petitioners contend that Ulu Road in Makueni, where the motor vehicle was flagged down, is not within the Regional Trunk Road Network and consequently the EACVLCA was inapplicable. Accordingly, the petitioners argue that the imposition of the exorbitant penalty was an unfair trade practice contrary to the EAC treaty; the penalty exceeded the value of the motor vehicle, rendering them destitute, and necessitates this court intervention.
6. The petitioners rely on a further affidavit sworn by Jahaziel Mwangi Maina on 5th April 2024, wherein the driver restates the case as argued by the petitioners and further argues that the Tracking Report attached to his affidavit and marked JMM-1 is evidence that the motor vehicle was intercepted at 2:00 am on Ulu Road, Makueni. It was also the driver's averment that the distance from the point of interception and the main road was 800 meters and therefore would not take an hour to cover as purported by the respondent.
7. He also argues that upon being stopped and inspected, the respondent’s officials insisted on weighing the motor vehicle at Mlolongo weighbridge despite having a mobile weighing bridge. He further contends that he was ordered to drive the motor vehicle to the Mlolongo station, which order he declined as he was compliant with load regulations. He argued that he was manhandled from the motor vehicle and made to travel in the respondent’s patrol car. Thereafter, he argues that he did not see the motor vehicle until it drove into the weighing bridge at 6:30 am. He annexes a second tracking report marked JMK-2 detailing the movement of the motor vehicle to Mlolongo weighbridge
8. As per the petitioners’ driver, the motor vehicle was not overloaded at the time of interception at Ulu Road, and the loading was guided by the delineated mark, which is indicative of the legally permitted capacity. He also argues that at the time the motor vehicle was driven to the weighing bridge, it was evident that additional load had been added past the indicative mark. He also argues that he was not present at the weighing of the motor vehicle, but was only handed the EAC (Weighbridge) Certificate and Overload Fee Invoice in which the respondent had charged Kshs. 28,947,891.951. He annexed the Certificate as JMM-3.
Particulars of breach
9. The petitioners contend that the unlawful detention of their motor vehicle and imposition of a fee of Kshs 28,947,891.951 contravenes their property right under Article 40 of the Constitution.
10. The petitioners further argue that subjecting them to the provisions of the EACVLCA is far-fetched, illegal, uncalled for and is in contravention of Article 27 of the Constitution on non-discrimination, as all other vehicles stopped and inspected at Ulu Road, Makueni, are governed by the Traffic Act. Additionally, it is the petitioners' case that the imposition of the fine without due process and without hearing them was in disregard of the rules of natural justice enshrined in Article 47 of the Constitution and the normative derivative in the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015. They particularly contend that the respondent’s actions or omission negatively affected their rights and therefore called for compliance with the requirements of procedural fairness under Section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
11. The petitioners also plead violation of their economic and social rights under Article 43. They contend that the imposition of the illegal and punitive fee arbitrarily diminished their source of livelihood. They also urge that manhandling their driver out of the motor vehicle was a mockery of his rights under Articles 28 and 29 of the Constitution.
Reliefs Sought
12. Based on the foregoing, the petitioners seek the following reliefs;
a) A declaration that the petitioners’ fundamental rights and freedoms as enshrined under Articles 25, 27, 40, 43 and 50 of the Constitution have been contravened and infringed upon by the respondent;
b) A declaration that the seizure and detention of the petitioners’ semi-truck (including the cargo trailer) amounts to a violation of the petitioners’ constitutional right to property;
c) An order of mandamus to compel the respondent to unconditionally release the petitioners’ semi-truck (including the cargo trailer) registration number KDN093C, ISUZU FVZ Chassis No. JALFVZ34TK7001178;
d) An order for compensation for loss of income during the entirety of the detention period; and
e) Costs of the petition
C. The Respondents’ Case
13. The respondents oppose the petition through a replying affidavit and supplementary affidavit sworn by the Weighbridge Manager, Athi River Station on 3rd April 2024 and 10th June 2025, respectively. The respondent also filed a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition. The preliminary objection was dismissed for lack of merit on 9th May 2024.
14. In its response, the respondent contends that pursuant to Section 4(1) of the Kenya Roads Act, No. 2 of 2007, it is responsible for the management, development, rehabilitation of all roads classified as national roads, road reserves, and the implementation of road policies in relation to national roads, among other duties. Further, pursuant to Section 22 of the Kenya Roads Act and in particular Section 22(1)(c) as read with Section 55(c) of the Traffic Act and the regulations thereof, it is mandated to measure and assess the weights, dimensions and capacities of vehicles using any road and to ensure compliance with the said rules and regulations on axle load control limits as provided for in law. The respondent also posits that in undertaking its duties, it is guided by the provisions of the EACVLCA, as read together with Regulations, 2018.
15. Guided by this framework, the respondent contends that the motor vehicle was intercepted at Malili town, which is along Mombasa Road in the Regional Trunk Road Network, and was weighed at the Athi River Weighbridge station situated at Athi River along Mombasa Road. The respondent also contends that the motor vehicle was neither flagged down on Ulu Road in Makueni nor weighed at the Mlolongo Weighbridge as argued by the petitioners. Further, the 1st petitioner's evidence is discredited as hearsay on the grounds that he was not present when the motor vehicle was weighed.
16. Additionally, it is the respondent’s case that after weighing the motor vehicle, a weighbridge ticket, certificate, and overload fees invoice were issued on the same date. To support this assertion, the respondent refers to the time and place stamps on the Weighbridge Ticket, Certificate, and overload Fees Invoice marked WSWT-1, WSWT-2, and WSWT-3. It is urged that this exercise was conducted in accordance with the procedure under EACVLCA, and the petitioners' allegations and version of events are inaccurate and false.
17. Moreover, the respondent argues that the petitioners’ tracking report annexed as JMK-5 is an incorrect and incomplete log/records of the motor vehicles’ location on 6th February 2024. In that, it fails to indicate the total mileage, travel time, average speed and maximum speed covered in the period in question. To further buttress, it is contended that the petitioners’ driver alleged to have seen the motor vehicle drive to the weighbridge station at 6:30 am, yet the last timestamp in the petitioners’ tracking report is 6:06 am. The respondent also argues that, in any event, in the tracking report relied on by the petitioners, at entries/log 2.02 am indicates that the suit lorry was travelling along Ulu Road until 2.43 am. Then the said motor vehicle travelled along Mombasa Road from 2.59 am to 6.06 am, demonstrating that it was in constant motion from interception to weighing.
18. The respondent also avers that it tracked the motor vehicle using its patrol pick-up from the point of interception until weighing at the Athi River station and relies on its tracking report marked WSWT-4 dated 27th March 2024. It asserts that the logs in its report are more accurate, and the travel and destination log clearly show that the motor vehicle was stopped along Mombasa Road at 1:55 am and driven to the Athi River weighbridge station at 6:18 am without any stops or diversion.
19. On the procedure, the respondent denies that after interception its officials forcefully took over the control of the motor vehicle. Instead, the respondent argues that, as admitted by the driver in his further affidavit, the driver declined the request to drive to the weighbridge. Therefore, the non-compliance with the instructions necessitated the takeover by the respondent’s officials, in exercise of the powers donated by Section 15(1)(b), (j) and (m) of the EACVLCA, which allows it to inspect any record relating to a load carried, to cause the vehicle to be driven to a designated location, and to cause to be performed tests and examinations as provided by the said Act, respectively.
20. Similarly, it is the respondent’s case that upon weighing, the said motor vehicle was overloaded by 27,120kg, over its legally permissible limit of 54,000kg. It is argued that contrary to the petitioners’ contention, there is no legal requirement under the regulatory framework requiring a party to witness the weighing of a suspected overloaded vehicle. It also argues that neither the petitioners nor their driver disputed the weighing certificate upon issuance at the weighbridge station.
21. Subsequently, the respondent insists that a weighbridge ticket and certificate were procedurally generated and calculated for settlement, as is a statutory requirement under Section 17 of EACVLCA as read together with Part III of the EACVLC Regulations, 2018. Further, the total fee for overloading was assessed and charged at USD 180,353.1, which, upon conversion at the dollar rate of USD to Ksh.160.5068 (then prevailing), translated to Kshs. 28,947,898.951.
22. It is also contended that after the petitioners failed to settle the invoiced fees, the motor vehicle was lawfully detained at Athi River weighbridge station holding yard pursuant to provisions of Section 15(1)(a) as read with Section 17(6) to 17(11) of EACVLCA and Regulation 13 of Part III of the Regulations, 2018. The respondent claims that in addition to the fee, daily detention charges of USD 50 accrue to the petitioners, until settlement in full and/or release of the motor vehicle. It contends that as at 21st March 2024, the accrued detention fee was Kshs. 279,440.00
23. On the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the respondent contends that the doctrine was inapplicable in the circumstances of this petition, as the law applicable for purposes of weighing the motor vehicle and assessing/charging the overload fee was EACVLCA and not the Traffic Act. It buttresses the tracking system adduced as WSWT4 confirmed that the motor vehicle was intercepted along Mombasa Road, which is part of the Northern corridor in the Regional Trunk road Network.
24. Finally, the respondent also raises an admissibility challenge to the photograph evidence produced by the petitioners as JMK-8 on the ground that no certificate of electronic evidence was produced as is required under Section106B of the Evidence Act. For these reasons it is argued that the petition lacks merit.
D. Viva Voce Evidence
25. On 2nd December 2024, this Court directed that the petition would be heard by way of viva voce evidence. Subsequently, the matter was heard on 29th October 2025. The petitioners called two witnesses, Jahaziel Mwangi Maina (hereinafter PW1) and John Mwaniki Kiarie (hereinafter PW2), while the respondent called one witness, Willie Shem Waithanja Thuku (hereinafter RW1).
26. PW1 in his sworn evidence stated that he was the driver of a motor vehicle registration No. KDM 093C ISUZU FVZ and the 1st petitioner was his employer. He stated that his work was to ferry sand from a river in Kajiado via an off-road to Milili in Makueni. He testified that on 6th February 2024, he was driving the motor vehicle from Mashru Kajiado transporting sand to Milili in Makueni County. While at Petro City along Ulu Road (a marram road), he was intercepted by a pickup double-cabin, and the occupants identified themselves as the respondent’s staff.
27. He averred that the said staff inquired what he was transporting and indicated that they wanted to weigh the truck, and when he allowed them to weigh the truck using their mobile weighbridge, they changed their minds and asked him to drive to Mlolongo weighbridge station. He added that an altercation ensued when he insisted that he had not exceeded the weight, as the sand load had not exceeded the marked calibration. It was his statement that thereafter the said respondent’s officials forcefully removed him from the motor vehicle, put him in their pickup and had one of them drive the lorry.
28. He stated that thereafter, he did not know the whereabouts of the lorry until at the Mlolongo weighbridge station, where the respondent’s staff weighed the lorry and parked it at the respondent’s yard. He testified that he was given papers to sign, and that was when he realised the weight presented on the weighbridge certificate was not the weight he had loaded onto the lorry. He also stated that he informed his employer, who went to the weighbridge station the following day. He relied on his further affidavit sworn on 5th April 2024, and the documents annexed thereto in support of his evidence.
29. In cross-examination, he confirmed that there was an altercation with the respondent’s staff who wanted the lorry to be driven to Mlolongo weighbridge because he had insisted the lorry be weighed on the spot, using the mobile weighbridge. He also confirmed that he could ascertain that the lorry was not overloaded, as the load was not past the calibration marking the recommended load, and that he had never been arrested for overloading before. He also stated that the respondent’s staff did not explain to him that they were detaining the lorry because it was on a regional road; he was not aware whether the respondent’s staff could lawfully confiscate and drive the motor vehicle. He insisted that he was bundled up into the respondent’s pick-up, and the respondent’s pick-up did not follow the lorry to the weighbridge; hence, he did not know the whereabouts of the lorry after interception, until he saw it at the weighbridge station.
30. He also confirmed that at the weighbridge station, he was given the weighbridge certificate and the invoices, and there was an excess axle load of 27,120 kgs. He stated that he could not ascertain the origin of the excess weight. He, however, explained that, from the petitioners’ tracking report marked JMM-1, the motor vehicle was intercepted at around 2:00 am and, thereafter, was driven by the respondent’s staff, who made an unexplained stop for around 30 minutes on Mombasa Road. He also argued that there are many loading points on Mombasa Road, and the loading time depended on the mode of loading technique, either by an escalator (which would take 5 minutes), or human labour, which would take longer. He stated that at the weighbridge he had no opportunity to complain that the load on the motor vehicle had been added, as he was not present during the weighing procedure and was only furnished with the weighbridge certificate, invoice and other documents.
31. On re-examination, he counter-referenced the two tracking reports stating that it is evident that at the point of interception by the staff of the respondents was Ulu Road, a small marram road in Makueni East and not Mombasa Road. He also reiterated that the petitioners’ motor vehicle is calibrated with the correct load mark and at the point of interception, the load was at the calibration mark; he was sure that the excess load was added somewhere from the point of interception and the Mlolongo weighbridge station; he was not present when the load was added and therefore could not tell the time it took to add the excess weight; and he did not witness the weighing of the motor vehicle by the respondent’s officials.
32. PW2 gave his sworn statement restating the averments in the supporting affidavit sworn on 15th April 2024 and the documents annexed therein. He reiterated that he is the director of the 2nd petitioner. Further, the motor vehicle is co-owned by the 2nd petitioner and Sidian Bank, who had financed its purchase. He testified that on 2nd February 2024, he was woken by PW1’s call at around 6;30 am, informing him that while ferrying sand from Kajiado to Makueni using the motor vehicle, he (PW1) had been arrested along Ulu Road and had been taken to a weighbridge station along Mombasa Road. He added that the driver informed him the respondent’s officials had intercepted him, pushed him from the motor vehicle, bundled him into the respondent’s pick-up and driven the motor vehicle to the Weighbridge station at Mlolongo, where the Lorry was weighed and invoiced for Kshs 28 million, a fee for overloading.
33. It was his testimony that upon arriving at the weighbridge station, he made inquiries from the personnel manning the office, but no information was forthcoming. He stated that from where the lorry was parked, he could tell it was overloaded. He stated that PW1 informed him that at the point of interception the motor vehicle was carrying the required load capacity; however, after the motor vehicle was driven to the weighbridge station by the respondent’s official, it was visibly overloaded. He detailed that the driver could not explain the source of the excess weight. He testified that thereafter he informed his financiers, the Sidian Bank, who referred him to their legal counsel and paid the security of Kshs. 500,000.00 ordered by this court as a condition to the release of the motor vehicle. He requested the court to grant the petitioners the relief sought in the petition.
34. In cross-examination, PW2 testified that he was not in the motor vehicle when it was intercepted and that he did not know why the driver was removed from the same. He referred to annexure JMK-3, attested that Sidian Bank had financed the purchase of the motor vehicle, with an outstanding balance of about Kshs. 5 million. He also added that the motor vehicle had been detained by the respondent for 3 months, but released subject to the orders of this Court.
35. It was further his testimony that, as per the weighbridge certificate and invoice, the motor vehicle had an excess of 27 tonnes, which was almost double the recommended weight. He noted that there are many loading sites along Mombasa Road, and his truck was not overloaded when arrested on Ulu Road, and the excess weight was illegally loaded by other people after the interception. He further testified that the detention of the motor vehicle infringed on his right to property and that he was denied a fair hearing by the respondents
36. On re-examination, he restated his testimony and added that he had suffered loss due to the respondent’s action and was seeking compensation for the loss suffered.
37. RW1 testified for the respondent and relied on his replying affidavit sworn on 3rd April 2025 and supplementary affidavit sworn on 10th June 2025. To begin with, he sought to correct paragraph 13(a) of the replying affidavit to amend that the motor vehicle was flagged down at 3:00 am and not 2:00 am as earlier indicated. He then stated that he was a weighbridge manager and an employee of Ebenezer Commercial Workers. He testified that the motor vehicle was stopped at 3:00 am on Mombasa Road after the intersection with Ulu Road.
38. He itemised that when the driver was flagged down, he refused to stop, and a chase ensued for about half a kilometre, after which the respondent’s officials managed to block the lorry. He detailed that thereafter, the officials contacted his immediate boss, who instructed him to have the vehicle weighed, as it was on the Regional Trunk Road Network and the EACVLCA was applicable. He stated that the driver was asked but refused to drive the motor vehicle to the weighbridge station, and as a result one of the officials was instructed by Sergeant Kariuki to drive it to the station.
39. He further testified that the driver drove in a separate escort vehicle, which trailed the motor vehicle, sandwiched between the escort car and another car belonging to the respondent, to the weighbridge station at Athi River. He stated that the motor vehicle was not stopped at any point after interception. On arrival to the station, RW1 stated that the motor vehicle was weighed in the presence of the petitioner’s driver; the driver furnished his particulars as captured on the Certificate, including his name; and the driver was inside the weighing room during the exercise.
40. It was his further statement that, comparing the two competing tracking reports, both vehicles were at a standstill for 30 minutes and it was the time the motor vehicle was flagged down. He disputes that the Motor vehicle was arrested at 1.55 am, as at that time, he claimed the respondent’s arresting pickup was at Kyumi. He also stated that after the arrest at around 3:27 am to 6:18 am, the escort car and the motor vehicle were in motion and it was impossible to add load to a moving motor vehicle. He testified that although he had left the station when the petitioner arrived, the petitioner was allowed to view his truck within the weighbridge premises. He also stated that the petitioner was known to him because his motor vehicle had been arrested before for overloading, and in other instances, he had paid the fines imposed.
41. He added that the EACVLCA applied to the circumstances of the interception as the motor vehicle was on Mombasa Road which is one of the Regional Trunk Roads.
42. On cross-examination, he agreed that he was not present when the motor vehicle was intercepted; he did not witness the interception but arrived shortly after; and therefore, he could not tell the exact time the interception had occurred. He also agreed that from the affidavits he sought to rely on, he could not point out where it was averred that he was on site at any time, during or after interception. He reiterated that the averments at paragraph 13(a) of his replying affidavit were contradictory to his testimony, insisting that he was seeking to amend it or remove it from the affidavit due to its incompleteness. He was also referred to paragraph 9 of the supplementary affidavit, where he had restated the averments in paragraph 13 and insisted that he wanted to amend the earlier averments that the motor vehicle was intercepted at 2:00 am.
43. He also stated that the two reports adduced by the parties are opposing, insisting that the arresting pick-up was at a standstill at 1:55 am and the interception was at around 3:00 am on Mombasa Road as indicated in the respondent’s tracking reports. He also stated that the chase lasted for about 2 seconds as evidenced by the tracking report log. He also confirmed that the tracking report relied on by the respondent was not on the motor vehicle but on the respondent’s escorting vehicle. He also stated that he had no evidence in support of his statement that the petitioners’ lorry had been arrested previously for overloading. Further, he testified that there is no weighbridge called Mlolongo weighbridge station, but there is a station called Athi River weighbridge in Mlolongo area. He also stated that under the law, once it was confirmed that a motor vehicle was overloaded, a fee was imposed and if dissatisfied, a party had recourse to the respondent, and thereafter, no appellate mechanism is provided.
44. On re-examination, he restated his evidence in chief, insisting that the respondent’s arresting vehicle was not on Ulu Road at any time on the night of arrest and the interception was on Mombasa Road after exiting Ulu Road at 3:00 am. He added that he arrived at the scene of arrest at around 3:30 am and at this time the petitioner's driver was in the escort vehicle.
E. Submissions by the Parties
45. The petitioners filed their submissions dated 25th February 2026 wherein they submit that the EACVLCA strictly applies to enforcement along the designated Regional Trunk Road Network as set out in the First Schedule. They reiterate that the interception occurred on Ulu Road and not Mombasa Road. Further, the respondent bears the obligation to demonstrate that the interception occurred on a road designated under the First Schedule of the EACVLCA, and in the absence of such proof, the purported enforcement action lacks statutory foundation and legitimacy.
46. They also submit that the respondent’s affidavit evidence of Willie Shem Waithaka Thuku is speculative and unsupported by firsthand knowledge. To support this averment, they argue that this evidence is indirect, and inadmissible as hearsay. More so in view of their driver's direct contradictory evidence. They add that the respondents have not demonstrated that their evidence falls within the exceptions outlined under Sections 33 and 35 of the Evidence Act.
47. They also discredit the respondents' account of the interception as lacking cogency and credibility. The petitioners also oppose RW1’s averments amending the averments of the replying affidavit. They submit that no satisfactory explanation has been provided for the contradiction between the affidavits and viva voce testimony. They contend that the cumulative effect of the inconsistencies in the respondent’s narrative, when measured against the contemporaneous tracking data, renders RW1’s narration of the events of the interception less credible.
48. On the violation of their right to fair administrative action under Article 47, the petitioners submit that the impoundment and detention of the motor vehicle was unlawful, unreasonable, and procedurally unfair. To this end, they contend that the respondent officers' actions and omissions fell outside the lawful confines. They expound that under Article 10 of the Constitution, the respondent and its officers have a duty to uphold national values and principles of governance, notably integrity, transparency, and accountability. They were required to exercise their administrative action giving clear reasons, in a transparent methodology, and a demonstrable factual foundation.
49. They further challenge the arbitrary imposition of a punitive and excessive penalty, coupled with coercive enforcement measures, unexplained custodial interference with the vehicle and its cargo, and the total denial of procedural fairness. They argue that the respondent was obligated to explain what constituted th
[...truncated]
1. The petitioners are the registered owners of a semi-truck, Isuzu FVZ registration No. KDN 093C and a trailer registration No. ZH2648 (herein referred to as the motor vehicle). The motor vehicle is jointly owned with Sidian Bank Limited, the financiers. On 6th February 2024, the motor vehicle, while transporting sand, was detained by the respondent’s officials under the provisions of the East African Community Vehicle Local Act, 2016 (hereinafter EACVLCA) and East African Community Vehicle Local Control (Enforcement Measures) Regulations, 2028 (hereinafter Regulations, 2018). The circumstances leading to the detention are in dispute between the parties in this petition.
2. On 9th May 2024, this Court (Olel J) granted the petitioners a mandatory injunction directed at the respondent to release the motor vehicle, after offloading the excess weight in the presence of the parties’ representatives. This order was subject to the petitioners depositing Kshs. 500,000.000 as security and upon giving a written irrevocable undertaking not to either remove the motor vehicle from the jurisdiction of this court or to lease, and/or dispose of it during the pendency of this petition.
B. Petitioners’ Case
3. By a petition dated 15th March 2024, the petitioners challenge the interception, arrest and detention of their motor vehicle by the respondent’s officials as well as the charge of Kshs 28,947, 891.951as a fee for overloading under the EACVLCA and Regulations, 2018. They contend that this action flouted the Traffic Act, which was the applicable law to the prevailing circumstances, thus is illegal, constitutes an overreach by the respondent’s supervisory authority, and therefore violated their constitutional property rights.
4. The petitioners aver that on 6th February 2024, their driver, one Jahaziel Mwangi Maina, was transporting sand from Mashuru in Kajiado County and was destined for Malili within Makueni County. Upon passing Petro City Petroleum depot, at around 2.00 am, the respondent’s officials flagged the motor vehicle on Ulu Road, Makueni. Further, it is their case that their driver stopped on the perception that it was a routine check. However, the respondent’s officials, despite the driver's protests, seized the motor vehicle, bundled the driver into their patrol vehicle, and took charge, only for the driver to see it while being driven to the Mlolongo Weighbridge Station at 6:30 am. The petitioners also argue that their driver noticed a disparity in the load at interception and after the officials drove it into the station. They contend that the respondent weighed the motor vehicle; assessed it as overloaded; and charged a fee of Kshs 28,947,891.951, in clear breach of procedural propriety and rules of natural justice. The petitioners particularly take issue with the respondent’s seizure of the motor vehicle for almost six hours, denying their driver the right to monitor the motor vehicle from the point of detention to the Weighing bridge.
5. It is also asserted that even in the event the motor vehicle was overloaded, which the petitioners dispute, there was a legitimate expectation that the purported offence would be governed by the Traffic Act and not under EACVLCA. To support this assertion, the petitioners contend that Ulu Road in Makueni, where the motor vehicle was flagged down, is not within the Regional Trunk Road Network and consequently the EACVLCA was inapplicable. Accordingly, the petitioners argue that the imposition of the exorbitant penalty was an unfair trade practice contrary to the EAC treaty; the penalty exceeded the value of the motor vehicle, rendering them destitute, and necessitates this court intervention.
6. The petitioners rely on a further affidavit sworn by Jahaziel Mwangi Maina on 5th April 2024, wherein the driver restates the case as argued by the petitioners and further argues that the Tracking Report attached to his affidavit and marked JMM-1 is evidence that the motor vehicle was intercepted at 2:00 am on Ulu Road, Makueni. It was also the driver's averment that the distance from the point of interception and the main road was 800 meters and therefore would not take an hour to cover as purported by the respondent.
7. He also argues that upon being stopped and inspected, the respondent’s officials insisted on weighing the motor vehicle at Mlolongo weighbridge despite having a mobile weighing bridge. He further contends that he was ordered to drive the motor vehicle to the Mlolongo station, which order he declined as he was compliant with load regulations. He argued that he was manhandled from the motor vehicle and made to travel in the respondent’s patrol car. Thereafter, he argues that he did not see the motor vehicle until it drove into the weighing bridge at 6:30 am. He annexes a second tracking report marked JMK-2 detailing the movement of the motor vehicle to Mlolongo weighbridge
8. As per the petitioners’ driver, the motor vehicle was not overloaded at the time of interception at Ulu Road, and the loading was guided by the delineated mark, which is indicative of the legally permitted capacity. He also argues that at the time the motor vehicle was driven to the weighing bridge, it was evident that additional load had been added past the indicative mark. He also argues that he was not present at the weighing of the motor vehicle, but was only handed the EAC (Weighbridge) Certificate and Overload Fee Invoice in which the respondent had charged Kshs. 28,947,891.951. He annexed the Certificate as JMM-3.
Particulars of breach
9. The petitioners contend that the unlawful detention of their motor vehicle and imposition of a fee of Kshs 28,947,891.951 contravenes their property right under Article 40 of the Constitution.
10. The petitioners further argue that subjecting them to the provisions of the EACVLCA is far-fetched, illegal, uncalled for and is in contravention of Article 27 of the Constitution on non-discrimination, as all other vehicles stopped and inspected at Ulu Road, Makueni, are governed by the Traffic Act. Additionally, it is the petitioners' case that the imposition of the fine without due process and without hearing them was in disregard of the rules of natural justice enshrined in Article 47 of the Constitution and the normative derivative in the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015. They particularly contend that the respondent’s actions or omission negatively affected their rights and therefore called for compliance with the requirements of procedural fairness under Section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
11. The petitioners also plead violation of their economic and social rights under Article 43. They contend that the imposition of the illegal and punitive fee arbitrarily diminished their source of livelihood. They also urge that manhandling their driver out of the motor vehicle was a mockery of his rights under Articles 28 and 29 of the Constitution.
Reliefs Sought
12. Based on the foregoing, the petitioners seek the following reliefs;
a) A declaration that the petitioners’ fundamental rights and freedoms as enshrined under Articles 25, 27, 40, 43 and 50 of the Constitution have been contravened and infringed upon by the respondent;
b) A declaration that the seizure and detention of the petitioners’ semi-truck (including the cargo trailer) amounts to a violation of the petitioners’ constitutional right to property;
c) An order of mandamus to compel the respondent to unconditionally release the petitioners’ semi-truck (including the cargo trailer) registration number KDN093C, ISUZU FVZ Chassis No. JALFVZ34TK7001178;
d) An order for compensation for loss of income during the entirety of the detention period; and
e) Costs of the petition
C. The Respondents’ Case
13. The respondents oppose the petition through a replying affidavit and supplementary affidavit sworn by the Weighbridge Manager, Athi River Station on 3rd April 2024 and 10th June 2025, respectively. The respondent also filed a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition. The preliminary objection was dismissed for lack of merit on 9th May 2024.
14. In its response, the respondent contends that pursuant to Section 4(1) of the Kenya Roads Act, No. 2 of 2007, it is responsible for the management, development, rehabilitation of all roads classified as national roads, road reserves, and the implementation of road policies in relation to national roads, among other duties. Further, pursuant to Section 22 of the Kenya Roads Act and in particular Section 22(1)(c) as read with Section 55(c) of the Traffic Act and the regulations thereof, it is mandated to measure and assess the weights, dimensions and capacities of vehicles using any road and to ensure compliance with the said rules and regulations on axle load control limits as provided for in law. The respondent also posits that in undertaking its duties, it is guided by the provisions of the EACVLCA, as read together with Regulations, 2018.
15. Guided by this framework, the respondent contends that the motor vehicle was intercepted at Malili town, which is along Mombasa Road in the Regional Trunk Road Network, and was weighed at the Athi River Weighbridge station situated at Athi River along Mombasa Road. The respondent also contends that the motor vehicle was neither flagged down on Ulu Road in Makueni nor weighed at the Mlolongo Weighbridge as argued by the petitioners. Further, the 1st petitioner's evidence is discredited as hearsay on the grounds that he was not present when the motor vehicle was weighed.
16. Additionally, it is the respondent’s case that after weighing the motor vehicle, a weighbridge ticket, certificate, and overload fees invoice were issued on the same date. To support this assertion, the respondent refers to the time and place stamps on the Weighbridge Ticket, Certificate, and overload Fees Invoice marked WSWT-1, WSWT-2, and WSWT-3. It is urged that this exercise was conducted in accordance with the procedure under EACVLCA, and the petitioners' allegations and version of events are inaccurate and false.
17. Moreover, the respondent argues that the petitioners’ tracking report annexed as JMK-5 is an incorrect and incomplete log/records of the motor vehicles’ location on 6th February 2024. In that, it fails to indicate the total mileage, travel time, average speed and maximum speed covered in the period in question. To further buttress, it is contended that the petitioners’ driver alleged to have seen the motor vehicle drive to the weighbridge station at 6:30 am, yet the last timestamp in the petitioners’ tracking report is 6:06 am. The respondent also argues that, in any event, in the tracking report relied on by the petitioners, at entries/log 2.02 am indicates that the suit lorry was travelling along Ulu Road until 2.43 am. Then the said motor vehicle travelled along Mombasa Road from 2.59 am to 6.06 am, demonstrating that it was in constant motion from interception to weighing.
18. The respondent also avers that it tracked the motor vehicle using its patrol pick-up from the point of interception until weighing at the Athi River station and relies on its tracking report marked WSWT-4 dated 27th March 2024. It asserts that the logs in its report are more accurate, and the travel and destination log clearly show that the motor vehicle was stopped along Mombasa Road at 1:55 am and driven to the Athi River weighbridge station at 6:18 am without any stops or diversion.
19. On the procedure, the respondent denies that after interception its officials forcefully took over the control of the motor vehicle. Instead, the respondent argues that, as admitted by the driver in his further affidavit, the driver declined the request to drive to the weighbridge. Therefore, the non-compliance with the instructions necessitated the takeover by the respondent’s officials, in exercise of the powers donated by Section 15(1)(b), (j) and (m) of the EACVLCA, which allows it to inspect any record relating to a load carried, to cause the vehicle to be driven to a designated location, and to cause to be performed tests and examinations as provided by the said Act, respectively.
20. Similarly, it is the respondent’s case that upon weighing, the said motor vehicle was overloaded by 27,120kg, over its legally permissible limit of 54,000kg. It is argued that contrary to the petitioners’ contention, there is no legal requirement under the regulatory framework requiring a party to witness the weighing of a suspected overloaded vehicle. It also argues that neither the petitioners nor their driver disputed the weighing certificate upon issuance at the weighbridge station.
21. Subsequently, the respondent insists that a weighbridge ticket and certificate were procedurally generated and calculated for settlement, as is a statutory requirement under Section 17 of EACVLCA as read together with Part III of the EACVLC Regulations, 2018. Further, the total fee for overloading was assessed and charged at USD 180,353.1, which, upon conversion at the dollar rate of USD to Ksh.160.5068 (then prevailing), translated to Kshs. 28,947,898.951.
22. It is also contended that after the petitioners failed to settle the invoiced fees, the motor vehicle was lawfully detained at Athi River weighbridge station holding yard pursuant to provisions of Section 15(1)(a) as read with Section 17(6) to 17(11) of EACVLCA and Regulation 13 of Part III of the Regulations, 2018. The respondent claims that in addition to the fee, daily detention charges of USD 50 accrue to the petitioners, until settlement in full and/or release of the motor vehicle. It contends that as at 21st March 2024, the accrued detention fee was Kshs. 279,440.00
23. On the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the respondent contends that the doctrine was inapplicable in the circumstances of this petition, as the law applicable for purposes of weighing the motor vehicle and assessing/charging the overload fee was EACVLCA and not the Traffic Act. It buttresses the tracking system adduced as WSWT4 confirmed that the motor vehicle was intercepted along Mombasa Road, which is part of the Northern corridor in the Regional Trunk road Network.
24. Finally, the respondent also raises an admissibility challenge to the photograph evidence produced by the petitioners as JMK-8 on the ground that no certificate of electronic evidence was produced as is required under Section106B of the Evidence Act. For these reasons it is argued that the petition lacks merit.
D. Viva Voce Evidence
25. On 2nd December 2024, this Court directed that the petition would be heard by way of viva voce evidence. Subsequently, the matter was heard on 29th October 2025. The petitioners called two witnesses, Jahaziel Mwangi Maina (hereinafter PW1) and John Mwaniki Kiarie (hereinafter PW2), while the respondent called one witness, Willie Shem Waithanja Thuku (hereinafter RW1).
26. PW1 in his sworn evidence stated that he was the driver of a motor vehicle registration No. KDM 093C ISUZU FVZ and the 1st petitioner was his employer. He stated that his work was to ferry sand from a river in Kajiado via an off-road to Milili in Makueni. He testified that on 6th February 2024, he was driving the motor vehicle from Mashru Kajiado transporting sand to Milili in Makueni County. While at Petro City along Ulu Road (a marram road), he was intercepted by a pickup double-cabin, and the occupants identified themselves as the respondent’s staff.
27. He averred that the said staff inquired what he was transporting and indicated that they wanted to weigh the truck, and when he allowed them to weigh the truck using their mobile weighbridge, they changed their minds and asked him to drive to Mlolongo weighbridge station. He added that an altercation ensued when he insisted that he had not exceeded the weight, as the sand load had not exceeded the marked calibration. It was his statement that thereafter the said respondent’s officials forcefully removed him from the motor vehicle, put him in their pickup and had one of them drive the lorry.
28. He stated that thereafter, he did not know the whereabouts of the lorry until at the Mlolongo weighbridge station, where the respondent’s staff weighed the lorry and parked it at the respondent’s yard. He testified that he was given papers to sign, and that was when he realised the weight presented on the weighbridge certificate was not the weight he had loaded onto the lorry. He also stated that he informed his employer, who went to the weighbridge station the following day. He relied on his further affidavit sworn on 5th April 2024, and the documents annexed thereto in support of his evidence.
29. In cross-examination, he confirmed that there was an altercation with the respondent’s staff who wanted the lorry to be driven to Mlolongo weighbridge because he had insisted the lorry be weighed on the spot, using the mobile weighbridge. He also confirmed that he could ascertain that the lorry was not overloaded, as the load was not past the calibration marking the recommended load, and that he had never been arrested for overloading before. He also stated that the respondent’s staff did not explain to him that they were detaining the lorry because it was on a regional road; he was not aware whether the respondent’s staff could lawfully confiscate and drive the motor vehicle. He insisted that he was bundled up into the respondent’s pick-up, and the respondent’s pick-up did not follow the lorry to the weighbridge; hence, he did not know the whereabouts of the lorry after interception, until he saw it at the weighbridge station.
30. He also confirmed that at the weighbridge station, he was given the weighbridge certificate and the invoices, and there was an excess axle load of 27,120 kgs. He stated that he could not ascertain the origin of the excess weight. He, however, explained that, from the petitioners’ tracking report marked JMM-1, the motor vehicle was intercepted at around 2:00 am and, thereafter, was driven by the respondent’s staff, who made an unexplained stop for around 30 minutes on Mombasa Road. He also argued that there are many loading points on Mombasa Road, and the loading time depended on the mode of loading technique, either by an escalator (which would take 5 minutes), or human labour, which would take longer. He stated that at the weighbridge he had no opportunity to complain that the load on the motor vehicle had been added, as he was not present during the weighing procedure and was only furnished with the weighbridge certificate, invoice and other documents.
31. On re-examination, he counter-referenced the two tracking reports stating that it is evident that at the point of interception by the staff of the respondents was Ulu Road, a small marram road in Makueni East and not Mombasa Road. He also reiterated that the petitioners’ motor vehicle is calibrated with the correct load mark and at the point of interception, the load was at the calibration mark; he was sure that the excess load was added somewhere from the point of interception and the Mlolongo weighbridge station; he was not present when the load was added and therefore could not tell the time it took to add the excess weight; and he did not witness the weighing of the motor vehicle by the respondent’s officials.
32. PW2 gave his sworn statement restating the averments in the supporting affidavit sworn on 15th April 2024 and the documents annexed therein. He reiterated that he is the director of the 2nd petitioner. Further, the motor vehicle is co-owned by the 2nd petitioner and Sidian Bank, who had financed its purchase. He testified that on 2nd February 2024, he was woken by PW1’s call at around 6;30 am, informing him that while ferrying sand from Kajiado to Makueni using the motor vehicle, he (PW1) had been arrested along Ulu Road and had been taken to a weighbridge station along Mombasa Road. He added that the driver informed him the respondent’s officials had intercepted him, pushed him from the motor vehicle, bundled him into the respondent’s pick-up and driven the motor vehicle to the Weighbridge station at Mlolongo, where the Lorry was weighed and invoiced for Kshs 28 million, a fee for overloading.
33. It was his testimony that upon arriving at the weighbridge station, he made inquiries from the personnel manning the office, but no information was forthcoming. He stated that from where the lorry was parked, he could tell it was overloaded. He stated that PW1 informed him that at the point of interception the motor vehicle was carrying the required load capacity; however, after the motor vehicle was driven to the weighbridge station by the respondent’s official, it was visibly overloaded. He detailed that the driver could not explain the source of the excess weight. He testified that thereafter he informed his financiers, the Sidian Bank, who referred him to their legal counsel and paid the security of Kshs. 500,000.00 ordered by this court as a condition to the release of the motor vehicle. He requested the court to grant the petitioners the relief sought in the petition.
34. In cross-examination, PW2 testified that he was not in the motor vehicle when it was intercepted and that he did not know why the driver was removed from the same. He referred to annexure JMK-3, attested that Sidian Bank had financed the purchase of the motor vehicle, with an outstanding balance of about Kshs. 5 million. He also added that the motor vehicle had been detained by the respondent for 3 months, but released subject to the orders of this Court.
35. It was further his testimony that, as per the weighbridge certificate and invoice, the motor vehicle had an excess of 27 tonnes, which was almost double the recommended weight. He noted that there are many loading sites along Mombasa Road, and his truck was not overloaded when arrested on Ulu Road, and the excess weight was illegally loaded by other people after the interception. He further testified that the detention of the motor vehicle infringed on his right to property and that he was denied a fair hearing by the respondents
36. On re-examination, he restated his testimony and added that he had suffered loss due to the respondent’s action and was seeking compensation for the loss suffered.
37. RW1 testified for the respondent and relied on his replying affidavit sworn on 3rd April 2025 and supplementary affidavit sworn on 10th June 2025. To begin with, he sought to correct paragraph 13(a) of the replying affidavit to amend that the motor vehicle was flagged down at 3:00 am and not 2:00 am as earlier indicated. He then stated that he was a weighbridge manager and an employee of Ebenezer Commercial Workers. He testified that the motor vehicle was stopped at 3:00 am on Mombasa Road after the intersection with Ulu Road.
38. He itemised that when the driver was flagged down, he refused to stop, and a chase ensued for about half a kilometre, after which the respondent’s officials managed to block the lorry. He detailed that thereafter, the officials contacted his immediate boss, who instructed him to have the vehicle weighed, as it was on the Regional Trunk Road Network and the EACVLCA was applicable. He stated that the driver was asked but refused to drive the motor vehicle to the weighbridge station, and as a result one of the officials was instructed by Sergeant Kariuki to drive it to the station.
39. He further testified that the driver drove in a separate escort vehicle, which trailed the motor vehicle, sandwiched between the escort car and another car belonging to the respondent, to the weighbridge station at Athi River. He stated that the motor vehicle was not stopped at any point after interception. On arrival to the station, RW1 stated that the motor vehicle was weighed in the presence of the petitioner’s driver; the driver furnished his particulars as captured on the Certificate, including his name; and the driver was inside the weighing room during the exercise.
40. It was his further statement that, comparing the two competing tracking reports, both vehicles were at a standstill for 30 minutes and it was the time the motor vehicle was flagged down. He disputes that the Motor vehicle was arrested at 1.55 am, as at that time, he claimed the respondent’s arresting pickup was at Kyumi. He also stated that after the arrest at around 3:27 am to 6:18 am, the escort car and the motor vehicle were in motion and it was impossible to add load to a moving motor vehicle. He testified that although he had left the station when the petitioner arrived, the petitioner was allowed to view his truck within the weighbridge premises. He also stated that the petitioner was known to him because his motor vehicle had been arrested before for overloading, and in other instances, he had paid the fines imposed.
41. He added that the EACVLCA applied to the circumstances of the interception as the motor vehicle was on Mombasa Road which is one of the Regional Trunk Roads.
42. On cross-examination, he agreed that he was not present when the motor vehicle was intercepted; he did not witness the interception but arrived shortly after; and therefore, he could not tell the exact time the interception had occurred. He also agreed that from the affidavits he sought to rely on, he could not point out where it was averred that he was on site at any time, during or after interception. He reiterated that the averments at paragraph 13(a) of his replying affidavit were contradictory to his testimony, insisting that he was seeking to amend it or remove it from the affidavit due to its incompleteness. He was also referred to paragraph 9 of the supplementary affidavit, where he had restated the averments in paragraph 13 and insisted that he wanted to amend the earlier averments that the motor vehicle was intercepted at 2:00 am.
43. He also stated that the two reports adduced by the parties are opposing, insisting that the arresting pick-up was at a standstill at 1:55 am and the interception was at around 3:00 am on Mombasa Road as indicated in the respondent’s tracking reports. He also stated that the chase lasted for about 2 seconds as evidenced by the tracking report log. He also confirmed that the tracking report relied on by the respondent was not on the motor vehicle but on the respondent’s escorting vehicle. He also stated that he had no evidence in support of his statement that the petitioners’ lorry had been arrested previously for overloading. Further, he testified that there is no weighbridge called Mlolongo weighbridge station, but there is a station called Athi River weighbridge in Mlolongo area. He also stated that under the law, once it was confirmed that a motor vehicle was overloaded, a fee was imposed and if dissatisfied, a party had recourse to the respondent, and thereafter, no appellate mechanism is provided.
44. On re-examination, he restated his evidence in chief, insisting that the respondent’s arresting vehicle was not on Ulu Road at any time on the night of arrest and the interception was on Mombasa Road after exiting Ulu Road at 3:00 am. He added that he arrived at the scene of arrest at around 3:30 am and at this time the petitioner's driver was in the escort vehicle.
E. Submissions by the Parties
45. The petitioners filed their submissions dated 25th February 2026 wherein they submit that the EACVLCA strictly applies to enforcement along the designated Regional Trunk Road Network as set out in the First Schedule. They reiterate that the interception occurred on Ulu Road and not Mombasa Road. Further, the respondent bears the obligation to demonstrate that the interception occurred on a road designated under the First Schedule of the EACVLCA, and in the absence of such proof, the purported enforcement action lacks statutory foundation and legitimacy.
46. They also submit that the respondent’s affidavit evidence of Willie Shem Waithaka Thuku is speculative and unsupported by firsthand knowledge. To support this averment, they argue that this evidence is indirect, and inadmissible as hearsay. More so in view of their driver's direct contradictory evidence. They add that the respondents have not demonstrated that their evidence falls within the exceptions outlined under Sections 33 and 35 of the Evidence Act.
47. They also discredit the respondents' account of the interception as lacking cogency and credibility. The petitioners also oppose RW1’s averments amending the averments of the replying affidavit. They submit that no satisfactory explanation has been provided for the contradiction between the affidavits and viva voce testimony. They contend that the cumulative effect of the inconsistencies in the respondent’s narrative, when measured against the contemporaneous tracking data, renders RW1’s narration of the events of the interception less credible.
48. On the violation of their right to fair administrative action under Article 47, the petitioners submit that the impoundment and detention of the motor vehicle was unlawful, unreasonable, and procedurally unfair. To this end, they contend that the respondent officers' actions and omissions fell outside the lawful confines. They expound that under Article 10 of the Constitution, the respondent and its officers have a duty to uphold national values and principles of governance, notably integrity, transparency, and accountability. They were required to exercise their administrative action giving clear reasons, in a transparent methodology, and a demonstrable factual foundation.
49. They further challenge the arbitrary imposition of a punitive and excessive penalty, coupled with coercive enforcement measures, unexplained custodial interference with the vehicle and its cargo, and the total denial of procedural fairness. They argue that the respondent was obligated to explain what constituted th
[...truncated]