1. The application that is before this court for determination is the one dated 4th September 2023 wherein the applicant seeks the following orders: -
1) CERTIORARI to bring into this court for the purpose of quashing the 1st Respondent’s illegal decision to suspend the Applicant’s Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications vide a letter dated 25th August, 2023.
2) MANDAMUS compelling the 1st Respondent to promptly and without delay reinstate the Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL.
3) PROHIBITION restraining the 1st Respondent by itself, its agents or anyone else under its instructions from engaging in any manner of disruption or obstruction of the operations of aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL, under the guise of effecting the enforcement of the suspension communicated in the said letter dated the 25th August, 2023.
4) The costs of this application and interest thereon be provided for.
5) Any other further relief this honorable court may deem fit and just to grant in the circumstances.
THE APPLICANTS’ CASE
2. On 25th August, 2023, it received a notice from the 1stRespondent that effective immediately, Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL had been suspended. The director of the Applicant averred that the he companies have at no time operated illegally or otherwise without required licenses and procedures in place. He stated that he had a firm belief that he was being persecuted through the applicant by virtue of belonging to the opposition party within the Republic of Kenya. That the actions to suspend the Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL are a political witch-hand to curtail the director’s political ambitions.
3. He argues that he has never been summoned by any investigative agency to aid in any form of investigations into alleged commissions nor omissions of any offence against the Civil Aviation Act and the rules thereunder. Further, that he is at a loss on what could have led the suspension of the impugned Air Operator Certificate by the 1st Respondent as the only allegation is that they have received information from unspecified sources to the effect that the applicant could be in violation of the Civil Aviation Act and rules thereunder.
4. It is the applicant’s case that the unspecified allegations against the impugned companies seem fabricated, unsubstantiated, scandalous and baseless, and are a bid to unreasonably deny him his economic rights as decreed under Article 43 of the Constitution. That the unwarranted suspension of the Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL without a prior notice is part of an unconstitutional path that several state organs including but not limited to the Respondents have deliberately colluded to trod on and subsequently frustrate the applicants’ full enjoyment of economic rights under article 43 of the Constitution. That the numerous bookings and employees are affected by the suspension without notice. The 1st Respondent in collaboration with other respondents herein is hell bent on throwing the applicant into unmitigated losses as the suspension was immediate and it came without any notice whatsoever. Further, that the 1st Respondent herein is working round the clock to defeat the purpose of the Constitution of the land, the Fair Administrative Action Act and other statutes to embarrass the authority therein and fulfill its own malicious and hidden agenda.
5. The Applicants’ case is that the 1st Respondent’s actions are in contravention of Article 2 of the Constitution and an outright exhibition of bad faith, malice and a well-orchestrated scheme to have the suspension of the Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL effected immediately without giving the Applicant an opportunity to mitigate the situation. Further, that all State Officers and Public Officers are obligated to comply with national values and principles of governance set out in Article 10 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 whenever they inter alia interpret the Constitution of Kenya and apply or interpret any law. These values include the rule of law, good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability.
6. It argues that the 1st Respondent’s refusal and/or failure to serve the Applicant with the notice to show cause why Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL should not be suspended is an infringement on the principles of good governance contemplated by Article 10 of the Constitution. That Article 19 (1) and (3) of the Constitution of Kenya provides that rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights belong to each individual and are not granted by the State and are subject only to limitations contemplated by the Constitution of Kenya.
7. It is further its case that the 1st Respondent’s malevolent actions of deceitfully suspending Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL without issuing any notices to the Applicant is a glaring curtailment of the Applicant’ right to property and right to fair administrative action and in violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of Kenya. Article 21 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya provides that it is a fundamental duty of the State and every state organ to observe, respect, promote and fulfill the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights.
8. It argues that the 1st Respondent’s refusal and/or lack of service of the notice to show cause to the applicant is a clear infringement of Article 21 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya by the 1stRespondent who is duty bound to observe, promote and fulfill the Rights and Fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights. Article 24 of the Constitution of Kenya safeguards all against limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms save in a manner that is set out thereunder in particular that imposition of a duty on the State to justify any limitation of rights under any legislation failing which the limitation shall be deemed as invalid.
9. It argues further that the 1st Respondent’s vengeful decision to not serve the Applicant with any prior notice of the intention to suspend Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL is limitation of the Applicant’ right to property and right to fair administrative action in a manner not justified by the Constitution as envisaged under Article 24. Article 27 of the Constitution underscores the right to equality and freedom from discrimination. It further stipulates that every person is equal before the law and equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms.
10. According to the Applicant,the 1st Respondent’s refusal and/or failure to avail to the Applicant a chance to avert the suspension of Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL is discriminative for reasons that it denies the Applicant the opportunity to mitigate against unforeseen losses. The command under Article 40 of the Constitution is that parliament shall not enact a law that permits the state of any person to arbitrarily deprive a person of property of any description.
11. It is concerned that 1st Respondent’s vengeful actions to deceitfully suspend Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5YDPL amounts to arbitrarily depriving the Applicant their property in violation of Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya. Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya stipulates that every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.
12. According to the Applicant, the 1st Respondent’s decision to suspend Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL notice amount to infringement of the Applicant’ right to fair administrative action guaranteed under Article 47. The edicts of Article 232 of the Constitution of Kenya outline the values and principles of public service which include but are not limited to high standard of professional ethics, transparency and provision to the public of timely, accurate information.
13. The Applicant also argues that the 1st Respondent’s notice dated the 25th of August 2023, stated that the suspension of the impugned Certificate was effective immediately yet the Applicant herein did not receive any notice of any such intended action against the companies, nor were they given a chance to correct any omissions that may have led to the suspension or a chance to present their case in defense of the companies.
14. It argues that it is appalling and unreasonable that the 1st responds decision to suspend Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL is effective immediately yet the applicant were never notified of the intended suspension and not given a chance to avert the suspension.
15. The Applicant filed submissions dated 23rd February 2026 where they identified the issues for determination and prceeded to submit on the same.
16. On whether the Applicant is entitedl to the orders sought, Counsel urged that he supremacy of the Constitution of Kenya is underscored under Article 2 of the Constitution and that the 1st Respondent’s actions of failing to serve the Applicant with the notice to show cause why Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications should not be suspended is in contravention of Article 2 of the Constitution and an outright exhibition of bad faith, malice and a well-orchestrated scheme to have the registration of the Applicant’s New Life Prayer Centre & Church cancelled without giving the Applicant an opportunity to mitigate the situation.
17. Counsel urged that all State Officers and Public Officers are obligated to comply with national values and principles of governance set out in Article 10 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 whenever they inter alia interpret the Constitution of Kenya and apply or interpret any law. These values include the rule of law, good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability. The 1st Respondent’s refusal and failure to serve the Applicant with the notice to show cause why Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications should not be suspended is an infringement on the principles of good governance contemplated by Article 10 of the Constitution.
18. It is the Applicants’ case that amongst the rights contained in the Bill of Rights are the following;
19. The recognition under Article 19 (1) and (3) of the Constitution of Kenya that, rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights belong to each individual and are not granted by the State and are subject only to limitations contemplated by the Constitution of Kenya. The 1st Respondent’s malevolent actions of deceitfully suspending Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications without issuing any notices to the Applicant is a glaring curtailment of the Applicant’ right to property and right to fair administrative action and in violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of Kenya.
20. The command under Article 21 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya is that it is a fundamental duty of the State and every state organ to observe, respect, promote and fulfill the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights. The 1st Respondent’s refusal and/or failure to and lack of service of the notice to show cause is a clear infringement of Article 21 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya by the 1st Respondent who is duty bound to observe, promote and fulfill the Rights and Fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights.
21. The prohibition under Article 24 of the Constitution of Kenya against limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms save in a manner that is set out thereunder in particular that imposition of a duty on the State to justify any limitation of rights under any legislation failing which the limitation shall be deemed as invalid. The 1st Respondent’s vengeful decision to not serve the Applicant with any prior notice of the intention to with the aim of fraudulently and cunningly suspending the Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications is limitation of the Applicant’ right to property and right to fair administrative action in a manner not justified by the Constitution as envisaged under Article 24.
22. Article 27 of the Constitution underscores the right to equality and freedom from discrimination. It further stipulates that every person is equal before the law and equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms. The 1st Respondent’s refusal and/or failure to give the applicant an opportunity to defend themselves against the alleged violations is discriminative for reasons that it denies the Applicant the opportunity to enjoy their genuine economic activities and aid investigative agencies in averting violations of the laid down laws and regulations.
23. The economic rights are envisaged under Article 43 of the Constitution of Kenya. The 1st Respondent’s flagrant attempts to maliciously and dishonestly suspend Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications vide a notice dated 25th August, 2023 on allegations of unspecified violations of the Act and rules thereunder is an infringement on the Applicant’ economic rights contrary to Article 43 of the Constitution of Kenya.
24. Further, the Applicants referred to Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya, urging that the 1st Respondent’s actions to suspend Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications vide a notice dated 25th August, 2023 on allegations of unspecified violations of the Civil Aviation Act and rules thereunder amounts to arbitrarily depriving the Applicant their property in violation of Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya.
25. According to the Applicants, Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya further stipulates that every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. The 1st Respondent’s impugned decision amounts to infringement of the Applicant’s right to fair administrative action. Further, that the 1st Respondent did not inform the applicant when or how the 1st Respondent received the information that it has used against the applicant and there is lack of transparency and professionalism and the 1st respondent’s actions are riddled with illegalities.
26. The Applicants urged that the 1st Respondent is a state office, duty bound to assist the Applicant as and when need arises with matters pertaining to the Aviation industry and its regulations. That the 1st Respondent’s refusal or failure to summon the applicant to aid in investigations into possible violations of the industry’s laws and regulations is worth noting as it is the regulator of the aviation industry and hitherto, the Applicant’ hands are tied. 2. The 1st Respondent’s notice was dated the 25th August 2023, yet the Applicant did not receive any notice of any such intended action against the companies, nor were they given a chance to correct any omissions that may have led to the suspension or a chance to present their case in defense of the said companies.
27. At the outset, it is submitted that the Respondents, in exercising its statutory mandate under the Civil Aviation Act, 2013, is bound not only by the enabling statute and subsidiary legislation but also by the constitutional imperatives set out in Articles 10, 47, and 50 of the Constitution. The suspension of an Air Operator Certificate is a decision of profound legal and economic consequence and the suspension of these instruments effectively grounds the operator’s entire business. It follows, therefore, that any decision to suspend must be undertaken with scrupulous adherence to the law and with due regard to the principles of fairness and proportionality.
28. Under the Civil Aviation Act and the applicable Civil Aviation Regulations, the Respondent is vested with the power to suspend, revoke, or vary certificates in the interest of aviation safety. However, that power is neither absolute nor unfettered. The regulatory framework contemplates a structured process that begins with the identification of a specific breach, deficiency, or safety concern grounded in objective evidence. Upon such identification, the Authority is required, in the ordinary course, to notify the operator of the allegations, disclose the basis upon which regulatory action is contemplated, and afford the operator a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations before any adverse decision is taken.
29. The Applicants’ case is that the requirement for prior notice and an opportunity to be heard is not a mere procedural technicality; it is a substantive constitutional safeguard. The only recognized exception to this requirement arises in situations of demonstrable urgency, where an immediate threat to aviation safety necessitates interim action without prior hearing. Even in such exceptional circumstances, the law requires that the Authority justify the urgency of its action and thereafter accord the affected operator a prompt and meaningful opportunity to be heard. The duty to provide reasons for the decision remains intact at all times.
30. In the present case, the Applicant contends that the Respondent failed to adhere to this legally prescribed procedure. The decision to suspend the Applicant’s AOC and Ops Specs was taken without adequate prior notice, without disclosure of the material allegations in sufficient detail, and without affording the Applicant an opportunity to be heard. No exceptional circumstances were demonstrated that would justify the invocation of urgent interim measures. In the absence of such justification, the Respondent’s action constitutes a clear violation of the Applicant’s right to fair administrative action as guaranteed under Article 47 and codified in the Fair Administrative Action Act.
31. Further, the impugned decision is tainted by illegality in that the Respondent acted outside the scope of its lawful authority by disregarding mandatory procedural requirements embedded in both statute and law. It is a settled principle of administrative law that where a statute prescribes a procedure for the exercise of power, that procedure must be strictly followed. Any deviation renders the resulting decision ultra vires and liable to be quashed.
32. The decision is also challenged on the ground of procedural impropriety. The failure to accord the Applicant a hearing, coupled with the absence of adequate notice and reasons, amounts to a fundamental breach of the rules of natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem rule. Kenyan courts have consistently held that a decision arrived at in violation of these principles cannot stand, regardless of the merits of the underlying allegations.
33. The Applicant also invokes the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Having been duly certified and having operated within a regulated framework, the Applicant had a legitimate expectation that any adverse regulatory action would be preceded by fair notice, consultation, and an opportunity to be heard. This expectation arises not only from established practice but also from the legal framework governing aviation oversight. The Respondent’s abrupt and unilateral action defeated this expectation and thereby violated a recognized principle of administrative justice.
34. It is therefore submitted that the cumulative effect of these deficiencies renders the Respondent’s decision unlawful, unreasonable, and procedurally unfair. The decision is thus amenable to judicial review and ought to be quashed.
35. Counsel urged that the Applicant is deserving of this Courts’ intervention and the orders sought. He prayed that the same be allowed with costs by virtue of section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.
THE 1 ST RESPONDENT’S CASE
36. It opposes the application and asserts that the 1st Respondent is a State Corporation established under Section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act No. 21 of 2013 responsible for providing regulatory oversight, air navigation services and aviation training in Kenya. Further, that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Application by dint of the doctrine of exhaustion. That the Application is premature as the Ex-parte Applicant has not exhausted the remedies availed in Section 69(c) of the Civil Aviation Act which grants the National Civil Aviation Administrative Review Tribunal the jurisdiction to hear and determine complaints and appeals arising from the revocation, suspension or variation of licenses issued by the 1st Respondent.
37. It is the Respondents’ case that the Application is fatally defective as it offends the mandatory provisions of Section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Act No. 4 of 2015 which requires that all mechanisms including internal mechanisms for appeal or review and all remedies available under any other written law are first exhausted before a matter is referred to this Honourable Court. That the Ex-parte Applicant lacks the requisite locus standi to institute the proceedings herein having failed to demonstrate sufficient interest in the matter raised in the Application. The Ex-parte Applicant has not demonstrated a nexus between itself and either Aberdair Aviation Limited, the license holder, or the impugned Air Operator Certificate and Operations Specifications for Aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL ("suit aircraft").
38. The Respondent argues that the Ex-parte Applicant sold the suit aircraft to Aberdair Aviation Limited in terms of the Aircraft Lease Agreement dated 16th January 2023. The purchase was completed through a Bill of Sale executed by the Ex-parte Applicant and Aberdair Aviation Limited on 15th August 2023, which vested in Aberdair Aviation Limited the good and merchantable title to the suit aircraft. As, at the time of instituting this Application, the Ex-parte Applicant had no relationship to the suit aircraft as to warrant an interest in the context of this dispute.
39. Aberdair Aviation Limited, through its letter referenced AA/HQSS/KCAA/2023/02 and dated 6th September 2023, formally applied to the 1st Respondent for change of ownership of the suit aircraft following the conclusion of the purchase agreement as per the Bill of Sale. The 1st Respondent after carefully considering the application, issued Aberdair Aviation Limited with a new Certificate of Registration Serial No: 0691 on 3rd October 2023, with Aberdair Aviation Limited named as the new owner of the suit aircraft.
40. The Respondent contends that the Ex-parte Applicant has not demonstrated anything to constitute a public interest to justify locus standi. Had the Ex-parte Applicant had any such locus standi, it was exhausted by the subsequent disposal of the suit aircraft.
41. The Respondent cited Article 258 of the Constitution and stated that the Ex-parte Applicant has failed to meet the threshold set by the Constitution for the institution of this Application and pray that the same is dismissed. That the 1st Respondent contends that the current dispute is not a matter of public interest; rather it arises from the 1st Respondent's exercise of its statutory mandate in relation to the suit aircraft and by extension, to Aberdair Aviation Limited.
42. The 1st Respondent issued Air Operator Certificate No. 216 to Aberdair Aviation Limited and not the Ex-parte Applicant on 2nd December 2022, which certificate expired on 27th November 2023. The certificate authorized Aberdair Aviation Limited to perform commercial air operations defined in the Operations Specifications that was subsequently issued to Aberdair Aviation Limited on 10th March 2023 and expiring on 27th November 2023, in respect of Aircraft Registration No. 5Y-DPL.
43. The 1st Respondent also granted Air Service License No. KCAA/LAS/2425 to Aberdair Aviation Limited on 22nd May 2023 to operate with effect from 18th May 2023 to 17th May 2024. Further, Aberdair Aviation Limited requested the 1st Respondent to include them as the new lessee on the Certificate of Registration of the suit aircraft. The request was considered and approved, and a Certificate of Registration Serial No. 0662 issued to the Ex-parte Applicant on 8th August 2023 with Aberdair Aviation Limited endorsed thereon as the new lessee
44. It is its position that i9Section 7(5) of the Civil Aviation Act, 2013 provides that the 1st Respondent in the discharge of its responsibility for ensuring aviation safety and security, shall co-ordinate its activities with other agencies of the Government, including the Kenya Airports Authority, the State Department of Defence and the National Police Service.
45. On 17th February 2023, the 1st Respondent received a letter from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations referenced CID/1B/SCU/SEC/4/4/1/VOL.XLV111/3 and dated 17th February 2023, requesting for information on registration particulars and details of the owner, particulars of the current and previous owner(s) including documents which facilitated transfers and any other relevant information, to facilitate their investigation into a case in which the suit aircraft was featured. The same was annexed and marked as "ENA 7"; and on the basis of the information received regarding the suit aircraft's operations and in exercise of the mandate bestowed under sections 20(2)(a) and 20(3)(f) of the Civil Aviation Act, 2013, through a letter referenced 2/1/2974/5Y-DPL and dated 25th August 2023, the 1st Respondent suspended with immediate effect the privileges of Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications in respect of the suit aircraft to allow for conclusive investigations by the 3rd Respondent and other relevant investigative organs of Government into the matter. He annexed and marked as "ENA 8" is the Letter referenced 2/1/2974/5Y-DPL and dated 25th February 2025).
46. The Ex-parte Applicant moved this Court through Miscellaneous Judicial Review Application Number E095 of 2023: KARIMULINK AVIATION LIMITED VERSUS KENYA CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY & 4 OTHERS("HCJRMISC/E095/2023") dated 28th August 2023 seeking leave to apply for Judicial Review Orders, which orders would operate as a stay of the decision of the 1st Respondent to suspend Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications in respect of the suit aircraft through the letter dated 25th August 2023.
47. The Judicial Review Orders sought by the Ex-parte Applicant in HCJRMISC/E095/2023 were granted on 28th August 2023 staying the 1st Respondent's decision to suspend Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications in respect of the suit aircraft through the letter dated 25th August 2023.
48. Through a letter referenced 2/1/2974/5Y-DPL and dated 29th August 2023, the 1st Respondent wrote to the Ex-parte Applicant and Aberdair Aviation Limited acknowledging receipt of the Court Order in HCJRMISC/E095/2023 and confirming the 1st Respondent's compliance with the same, thereby lifting the suspension of the Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications in respect of the suit aircraft. The same was annexed and marked as "ENA 9" the Letter referenced 2/1/2974/5Y-DPL and dated 25th August 2023).
49. The 1st Respondent has remained fully compliant with the conditions for stay and the Court Order in HCJRMISC/E095/2023 is still in effect as evidenced by the approval of transfer of the suit aircraft and authorization of the suit aircraft to continue operations.
50. The Ex-parte Applicant moved this Court through HIGH COURT COMMERCIAL CASE NO. E500 OF 2023: KARIMULINK AVIATION LIMITED VS KENYA CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY AND DIRECTOR GENERAL, EMILE N. ARAO ("HCCOMM/E500/2023") dated 11th October 2023 claiming, among others, economic losses ostensibly occasioned to the Exparte Applicant pursuant to the suspension of the Air Operator Certificate, which supposed losses were suffered long after the suit aircraft was sold to Aberdair Aviation Limited of its own motion and evidently realizing the lack of merit in HCCOMM/E500/2023, the Ex-parte Applicant applied to the Honourable Court to have the case withdrawn. The matter was subsequently marked as closed on 9th July 2024 with costs awarded to the 1st Respondent.
51. Based on this, it is outrightly clear that the Ex-parte Applicant is shopping for fora where they think they can obtain favourable decisions, but all the while wasting the Honourable Court's precious time. the Application does not disclose a constitutional issue for consideration by this Honourable Court. The mere mention of Articles 2, 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 40, 43, 47, 48, 50, 232, 258 and 259 does not qualify the context of the dispute between parties to be of a purely Constitutional nature.
52. Any assertion that the 1st Respondent acted in a manner that infringed on the constitutional rights of the Ex-parte Applicant or denied the Ex-parte Applicant the protection of its constitutional rights out of malice or otherwise is vehemently denied. The claim that the 1st Respondent exceeded its authority is denied.
THE 1ST RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS
53. The 1st Respondent contends that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Application by dint of the doctrine of exhaustion as the Ex-parte Applica
[...truncated]
1) CERTIORARI to bring into this court for the purpose of quashing the 1st Respondent’s illegal decision to suspend the Applicant’s Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications vide a letter dated 25th August, 2023.
2) MANDAMUS compelling the 1st Respondent to promptly and without delay reinstate the Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL.
3) PROHIBITION restraining the 1st Respondent by itself, its agents or anyone else under its instructions from engaging in any manner of disruption or obstruction of the operations of aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL, under the guise of effecting the enforcement of the suspension communicated in the said letter dated the 25th August, 2023.
4) The costs of this application and interest thereon be provided for.
5) Any other further relief this honorable court may deem fit and just to grant in the circumstances.
THE APPLICANTS’ CASE
2. On 25th August, 2023, it received a notice from the 1stRespondent that effective immediately, Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL had been suspended. The director of the Applicant averred that the he companies have at no time operated illegally or otherwise without required licenses and procedures in place. He stated that he had a firm belief that he was being persecuted through the applicant by virtue of belonging to the opposition party within the Republic of Kenya. That the actions to suspend the Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL are a political witch-hand to curtail the director’s political ambitions.
3. He argues that he has never been summoned by any investigative agency to aid in any form of investigations into alleged commissions nor omissions of any offence against the Civil Aviation Act and the rules thereunder. Further, that he is at a loss on what could have led the suspension of the impugned Air Operator Certificate by the 1st Respondent as the only allegation is that they have received information from unspecified sources to the effect that the applicant could be in violation of the Civil Aviation Act and rules thereunder.
4. It is the applicant’s case that the unspecified allegations against the impugned companies seem fabricated, unsubstantiated, scandalous and baseless, and are a bid to unreasonably deny him his economic rights as decreed under Article 43 of the Constitution. That the unwarranted suspension of the Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL without a prior notice is part of an unconstitutional path that several state organs including but not limited to the Respondents have deliberately colluded to trod on and subsequently frustrate the applicants’ full enjoyment of economic rights under article 43 of the Constitution. That the numerous bookings and employees are affected by the suspension without notice. The 1st Respondent in collaboration with other respondents herein is hell bent on throwing the applicant into unmitigated losses as the suspension was immediate and it came without any notice whatsoever. Further, that the 1st Respondent herein is working round the clock to defeat the purpose of the Constitution of the land, the Fair Administrative Action Act and other statutes to embarrass the authority therein and fulfill its own malicious and hidden agenda.
5. The Applicants’ case is that the 1st Respondent’s actions are in contravention of Article 2 of the Constitution and an outright exhibition of bad faith, malice and a well-orchestrated scheme to have the suspension of the Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL effected immediately without giving the Applicant an opportunity to mitigate the situation. Further, that all State Officers and Public Officers are obligated to comply with national values and principles of governance set out in Article 10 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 whenever they inter alia interpret the Constitution of Kenya and apply or interpret any law. These values include the rule of law, good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability.
6. It argues that the 1st Respondent’s refusal and/or failure to serve the Applicant with the notice to show cause why Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL should not be suspended is an infringement on the principles of good governance contemplated by Article 10 of the Constitution. That Article 19 (1) and (3) of the Constitution of Kenya provides that rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights belong to each individual and are not granted by the State and are subject only to limitations contemplated by the Constitution of Kenya.
7. It is further its case that the 1st Respondent’s malevolent actions of deceitfully suspending Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL without issuing any notices to the Applicant is a glaring curtailment of the Applicant’ right to property and right to fair administrative action and in violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of Kenya. Article 21 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya provides that it is a fundamental duty of the State and every state organ to observe, respect, promote and fulfill the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights.
8. It argues that the 1st Respondent’s refusal and/or lack of service of the notice to show cause to the applicant is a clear infringement of Article 21 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya by the 1stRespondent who is duty bound to observe, promote and fulfill the Rights and Fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights. Article 24 of the Constitution of Kenya safeguards all against limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms save in a manner that is set out thereunder in particular that imposition of a duty on the State to justify any limitation of rights under any legislation failing which the limitation shall be deemed as invalid.
9. It argues further that the 1st Respondent’s vengeful decision to not serve the Applicant with any prior notice of the intention to suspend Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL is limitation of the Applicant’ right to property and right to fair administrative action in a manner not justified by the Constitution as envisaged under Article 24. Article 27 of the Constitution underscores the right to equality and freedom from discrimination. It further stipulates that every person is equal before the law and equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms.
10. According to the Applicant,the 1st Respondent’s refusal and/or failure to avail to the Applicant a chance to avert the suspension of Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL is discriminative for reasons that it denies the Applicant the opportunity to mitigate against unforeseen losses. The command under Article 40 of the Constitution is that parliament shall not enact a law that permits the state of any person to arbitrarily deprive a person of property of any description.
11. It is concerned that 1st Respondent’s vengeful actions to deceitfully suspend Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5YDPL amounts to arbitrarily depriving the Applicant their property in violation of Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya. Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya stipulates that every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.
12. According to the Applicant, the 1st Respondent’s decision to suspend Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL notice amount to infringement of the Applicant’ right to fair administrative action guaranteed under Article 47. The edicts of Article 232 of the Constitution of Kenya outline the values and principles of public service which include but are not limited to high standard of professional ethics, transparency and provision to the public of timely, accurate information.
13. The Applicant also argues that the 1st Respondent’s notice dated the 25th of August 2023, stated that the suspension of the impugned Certificate was effective immediately yet the Applicant herein did not receive any notice of any such intended action against the companies, nor were they given a chance to correct any omissions that may have led to the suspension or a chance to present their case in defense of the companies.
14. It argues that it is appalling and unreasonable that the 1st responds decision to suspend Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications with respect to aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL is effective immediately yet the applicant were never notified of the intended suspension and not given a chance to avert the suspension.
15. The Applicant filed submissions dated 23rd February 2026 where they identified the issues for determination and prceeded to submit on the same.
16. On whether the Applicant is entitedl to the orders sought, Counsel urged that he supremacy of the Constitution of Kenya is underscored under Article 2 of the Constitution and that the 1st Respondent’s actions of failing to serve the Applicant with the notice to show cause why Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications should not be suspended is in contravention of Article 2 of the Constitution and an outright exhibition of bad faith, malice and a well-orchestrated scheme to have the registration of the Applicant’s New Life Prayer Centre & Church cancelled without giving the Applicant an opportunity to mitigate the situation.
17. Counsel urged that all State Officers and Public Officers are obligated to comply with national values and principles of governance set out in Article 10 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 whenever they inter alia interpret the Constitution of Kenya and apply or interpret any law. These values include the rule of law, good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability. The 1st Respondent’s refusal and failure to serve the Applicant with the notice to show cause why Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications should not be suspended is an infringement on the principles of good governance contemplated by Article 10 of the Constitution.
18. It is the Applicants’ case that amongst the rights contained in the Bill of Rights are the following;
19. The recognition under Article 19 (1) and (3) of the Constitution of Kenya that, rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights belong to each individual and are not granted by the State and are subject only to limitations contemplated by the Constitution of Kenya. The 1st Respondent’s malevolent actions of deceitfully suspending Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications without issuing any notices to the Applicant is a glaring curtailment of the Applicant’ right to property and right to fair administrative action and in violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of Kenya.
20. The command under Article 21 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya is that it is a fundamental duty of the State and every state organ to observe, respect, promote and fulfill the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights. The 1st Respondent’s refusal and/or failure to and lack of service of the notice to show cause is a clear infringement of Article 21 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya by the 1st Respondent who is duty bound to observe, promote and fulfill the Rights and Fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights.
21. The prohibition under Article 24 of the Constitution of Kenya against limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms save in a manner that is set out thereunder in particular that imposition of a duty on the State to justify any limitation of rights under any legislation failing which the limitation shall be deemed as invalid. The 1st Respondent’s vengeful decision to not serve the Applicant with any prior notice of the intention to with the aim of fraudulently and cunningly suspending the Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications is limitation of the Applicant’ right to property and right to fair administrative action in a manner not justified by the Constitution as envisaged under Article 24.
22. Article 27 of the Constitution underscores the right to equality and freedom from discrimination. It further stipulates that every person is equal before the law and equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms. The 1st Respondent’s refusal and/or failure to give the applicant an opportunity to defend themselves against the alleged violations is discriminative for reasons that it denies the Applicant the opportunity to enjoy their genuine economic activities and aid investigative agencies in averting violations of the laid down laws and regulations.
23. The economic rights are envisaged under Article 43 of the Constitution of Kenya. The 1st Respondent’s flagrant attempts to maliciously and dishonestly suspend Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications vide a notice dated 25th August, 2023 on allegations of unspecified violations of the Act and rules thereunder is an infringement on the Applicant’ economic rights contrary to Article 43 of the Constitution of Kenya.
24. Further, the Applicants referred to Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya, urging that the 1st Respondent’s actions to suspend Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications vide a notice dated 25th August, 2023 on allegations of unspecified violations of the Civil Aviation Act and rules thereunder amounts to arbitrarily depriving the Applicant their property in violation of Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya.
25. According to the Applicants, Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya further stipulates that every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. The 1st Respondent’s impugned decision amounts to infringement of the Applicant’s right to fair administrative action. Further, that the 1st Respondent did not inform the applicant when or how the 1st Respondent received the information that it has used against the applicant and there is lack of transparency and professionalism and the 1st respondent’s actions are riddled with illegalities.
26. The Applicants urged that the 1st Respondent is a state office, duty bound to assist the Applicant as and when need arises with matters pertaining to the Aviation industry and its regulations. That the 1st Respondent’s refusal or failure to summon the applicant to aid in investigations into possible violations of the industry’s laws and regulations is worth noting as it is the regulator of the aviation industry and hitherto, the Applicant’ hands are tied. 2. The 1st Respondent’s notice was dated the 25th August 2023, yet the Applicant did not receive any notice of any such intended action against the companies, nor were they given a chance to correct any omissions that may have led to the suspension or a chance to present their case in defense of the said companies.
27. At the outset, it is submitted that the Respondents, in exercising its statutory mandate under the Civil Aviation Act, 2013, is bound not only by the enabling statute and subsidiary legislation but also by the constitutional imperatives set out in Articles 10, 47, and 50 of the Constitution. The suspension of an Air Operator Certificate is a decision of profound legal and economic consequence and the suspension of these instruments effectively grounds the operator’s entire business. It follows, therefore, that any decision to suspend must be undertaken with scrupulous adherence to the law and with due regard to the principles of fairness and proportionality.
28. Under the Civil Aviation Act and the applicable Civil Aviation Regulations, the Respondent is vested with the power to suspend, revoke, or vary certificates in the interest of aviation safety. However, that power is neither absolute nor unfettered. The regulatory framework contemplates a structured process that begins with the identification of a specific breach, deficiency, or safety concern grounded in objective evidence. Upon such identification, the Authority is required, in the ordinary course, to notify the operator of the allegations, disclose the basis upon which regulatory action is contemplated, and afford the operator a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations before any adverse decision is taken.
29. The Applicants’ case is that the requirement for prior notice and an opportunity to be heard is not a mere procedural technicality; it is a substantive constitutional safeguard. The only recognized exception to this requirement arises in situations of demonstrable urgency, where an immediate threat to aviation safety necessitates interim action without prior hearing. Even in such exceptional circumstances, the law requires that the Authority justify the urgency of its action and thereafter accord the affected operator a prompt and meaningful opportunity to be heard. The duty to provide reasons for the decision remains intact at all times.
30. In the present case, the Applicant contends that the Respondent failed to adhere to this legally prescribed procedure. The decision to suspend the Applicant’s AOC and Ops Specs was taken without adequate prior notice, without disclosure of the material allegations in sufficient detail, and without affording the Applicant an opportunity to be heard. No exceptional circumstances were demonstrated that would justify the invocation of urgent interim measures. In the absence of such justification, the Respondent’s action constitutes a clear violation of the Applicant’s right to fair administrative action as guaranteed under Article 47 and codified in the Fair Administrative Action Act.
31. Further, the impugned decision is tainted by illegality in that the Respondent acted outside the scope of its lawful authority by disregarding mandatory procedural requirements embedded in both statute and law. It is a settled principle of administrative law that where a statute prescribes a procedure for the exercise of power, that procedure must be strictly followed. Any deviation renders the resulting decision ultra vires and liable to be quashed.
32. The decision is also challenged on the ground of procedural impropriety. The failure to accord the Applicant a hearing, coupled with the absence of adequate notice and reasons, amounts to a fundamental breach of the rules of natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem rule. Kenyan courts have consistently held that a decision arrived at in violation of these principles cannot stand, regardless of the merits of the underlying allegations.
33. The Applicant also invokes the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Having been duly certified and having operated within a regulated framework, the Applicant had a legitimate expectation that any adverse regulatory action would be preceded by fair notice, consultation, and an opportunity to be heard. This expectation arises not only from established practice but also from the legal framework governing aviation oversight. The Respondent’s abrupt and unilateral action defeated this expectation and thereby violated a recognized principle of administrative justice.
34. It is therefore submitted that the cumulative effect of these deficiencies renders the Respondent’s decision unlawful, unreasonable, and procedurally unfair. The decision is thus amenable to judicial review and ought to be quashed.
35. Counsel urged that the Applicant is deserving of this Courts’ intervention and the orders sought. He prayed that the same be allowed with costs by virtue of section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.
THE 1 ST RESPONDENT’S CASE
36. It opposes the application and asserts that the 1st Respondent is a State Corporation established under Section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act No. 21 of 2013 responsible for providing regulatory oversight, air navigation services and aviation training in Kenya. Further, that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Application by dint of the doctrine of exhaustion. That the Application is premature as the Ex-parte Applicant has not exhausted the remedies availed in Section 69(c) of the Civil Aviation Act which grants the National Civil Aviation Administrative Review Tribunal the jurisdiction to hear and determine complaints and appeals arising from the revocation, suspension or variation of licenses issued by the 1st Respondent.
37. It is the Respondents’ case that the Application is fatally defective as it offends the mandatory provisions of Section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Act No. 4 of 2015 which requires that all mechanisms including internal mechanisms for appeal or review and all remedies available under any other written law are first exhausted before a matter is referred to this Honourable Court. That the Ex-parte Applicant lacks the requisite locus standi to institute the proceedings herein having failed to demonstrate sufficient interest in the matter raised in the Application. The Ex-parte Applicant has not demonstrated a nexus between itself and either Aberdair Aviation Limited, the license holder, or the impugned Air Operator Certificate and Operations Specifications for Aircraft registration number 5Y-DPL ("suit aircraft").
38. The Respondent argues that the Ex-parte Applicant sold the suit aircraft to Aberdair Aviation Limited in terms of the Aircraft Lease Agreement dated 16th January 2023. The purchase was completed through a Bill of Sale executed by the Ex-parte Applicant and Aberdair Aviation Limited on 15th August 2023, which vested in Aberdair Aviation Limited the good and merchantable title to the suit aircraft. As, at the time of instituting this Application, the Ex-parte Applicant had no relationship to the suit aircraft as to warrant an interest in the context of this dispute.
39. Aberdair Aviation Limited, through its letter referenced AA/HQSS/KCAA/2023/02 and dated 6th September 2023, formally applied to the 1st Respondent for change of ownership of the suit aircraft following the conclusion of the purchase agreement as per the Bill of Sale. The 1st Respondent after carefully considering the application, issued Aberdair Aviation Limited with a new Certificate of Registration Serial No: 0691 on 3rd October 2023, with Aberdair Aviation Limited named as the new owner of the suit aircraft.
40. The Respondent contends that the Ex-parte Applicant has not demonstrated anything to constitute a public interest to justify locus standi. Had the Ex-parte Applicant had any such locus standi, it was exhausted by the subsequent disposal of the suit aircraft.
41. The Respondent cited Article 258 of the Constitution and stated that the Ex-parte Applicant has failed to meet the threshold set by the Constitution for the institution of this Application and pray that the same is dismissed. That the 1st Respondent contends that the current dispute is not a matter of public interest; rather it arises from the 1st Respondent's exercise of its statutory mandate in relation to the suit aircraft and by extension, to Aberdair Aviation Limited.
42. The 1st Respondent issued Air Operator Certificate No. 216 to Aberdair Aviation Limited and not the Ex-parte Applicant on 2nd December 2022, which certificate expired on 27th November 2023. The certificate authorized Aberdair Aviation Limited to perform commercial air operations defined in the Operations Specifications that was subsequently issued to Aberdair Aviation Limited on 10th March 2023 and expiring on 27th November 2023, in respect of Aircraft Registration No. 5Y-DPL.
43. The 1st Respondent also granted Air Service License No. KCAA/LAS/2425 to Aberdair Aviation Limited on 22nd May 2023 to operate with effect from 18th May 2023 to 17th May 2024. Further, Aberdair Aviation Limited requested the 1st Respondent to include them as the new lessee on the Certificate of Registration of the suit aircraft. The request was considered and approved, and a Certificate of Registration Serial No. 0662 issued to the Ex-parte Applicant on 8th August 2023 with Aberdair Aviation Limited endorsed thereon as the new lessee
44. It is its position that i9Section 7(5) of the Civil Aviation Act, 2013 provides that the 1st Respondent in the discharge of its responsibility for ensuring aviation safety and security, shall co-ordinate its activities with other agencies of the Government, including the Kenya Airports Authority, the State Department of Defence and the National Police Service.
45. On 17th February 2023, the 1st Respondent received a letter from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations referenced CID/1B/SCU/SEC/4/4/1/VOL.XLV111/3 and dated 17th February 2023, requesting for information on registration particulars and details of the owner, particulars of the current and previous owner(s) including documents which facilitated transfers and any other relevant information, to facilitate their investigation into a case in which the suit aircraft was featured. The same was annexed and marked as "ENA 7"; and on the basis of the information received regarding the suit aircraft's operations and in exercise of the mandate bestowed under sections 20(2)(a) and 20(3)(f) of the Civil Aviation Act, 2013, through a letter referenced 2/1/2974/5Y-DPL and dated 25th August 2023, the 1st Respondent suspended with immediate effect the privileges of Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications in respect of the suit aircraft to allow for conclusive investigations by the 3rd Respondent and other relevant investigative organs of Government into the matter. He annexed and marked as "ENA 8" is the Letter referenced 2/1/2974/5Y-DPL and dated 25th February 2025).
46. The Ex-parte Applicant moved this Court through Miscellaneous Judicial Review Application Number E095 of 2023: KARIMULINK AVIATION LIMITED VERSUS KENYA CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY & 4 OTHERS("HCJRMISC/E095/2023") dated 28th August 2023 seeking leave to apply for Judicial Review Orders, which orders would operate as a stay of the decision of the 1st Respondent to suspend Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications in respect of the suit aircraft through the letter dated 25th August 2023.
47. The Judicial Review Orders sought by the Ex-parte Applicant in HCJRMISC/E095/2023 were granted on 28th August 2023 staying the 1st Respondent's decision to suspend Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications in respect of the suit aircraft through the letter dated 25th August 2023.
48. Through a letter referenced 2/1/2974/5Y-DPL and dated 29th August 2023, the 1st Respondent wrote to the Ex-parte Applicant and Aberdair Aviation Limited acknowledging receipt of the Court Order in HCJRMISC/E095/2023 and confirming the 1st Respondent's compliance with the same, thereby lifting the suspension of the Air Operator Certificate No. 216 and Operations Specifications in respect of the suit aircraft. The same was annexed and marked as "ENA 9" the Letter referenced 2/1/2974/5Y-DPL and dated 25th August 2023).
49. The 1st Respondent has remained fully compliant with the conditions for stay and the Court Order in HCJRMISC/E095/2023 is still in effect as evidenced by the approval of transfer of the suit aircraft and authorization of the suit aircraft to continue operations.
50. The Ex-parte Applicant moved this Court through HIGH COURT COMMERCIAL CASE NO. E500 OF 2023: KARIMULINK AVIATION LIMITED VS KENYA CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY AND DIRECTOR GENERAL, EMILE N. ARAO ("HCCOMM/E500/2023") dated 11th October 2023 claiming, among others, economic losses ostensibly occasioned to the Exparte Applicant pursuant to the suspension of the Air Operator Certificate, which supposed losses were suffered long after the suit aircraft was sold to Aberdair Aviation Limited of its own motion and evidently realizing the lack of merit in HCCOMM/E500/2023, the Ex-parte Applicant applied to the Honourable Court to have the case withdrawn. The matter was subsequently marked as closed on 9th July 2024 with costs awarded to the 1st Respondent.
51. Based on this, it is outrightly clear that the Ex-parte Applicant is shopping for fora where they think they can obtain favourable decisions, but all the while wasting the Honourable Court's precious time. the Application does not disclose a constitutional issue for consideration by this Honourable Court. The mere mention of Articles 2, 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 40, 43, 47, 48, 50, 232, 258 and 259 does not qualify the context of the dispute between parties to be of a purely Constitutional nature.
52. Any assertion that the 1st Respondent acted in a manner that infringed on the constitutional rights of the Ex-parte Applicant or denied the Ex-parte Applicant the protection of its constitutional rights out of malice or otherwise is vehemently denied. The claim that the 1st Respondent exceeded its authority is denied.
THE 1ST RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS
53. The 1st Respondent contends that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Application by dint of the doctrine of exhaustion as the Ex-parte Applica
[...truncated]