1. The Plaintiff/Applicant moved the Court by a Notice of Motion dated 2nd July 2026 seeking, principally, an order declaring that upon the withdrawal of the suit on 23rd June 2026, the interim orders issued on 8th January 2026 had lapsed and, consequently, directing the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) to lift and remove the caveats, restrictions or prohibitory orders registered against its motor vehicles pursuant to those orders.
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Ayub Omar. The Applicant states that the suit was withdrawn on 23rd June 2026 and that its advocates subsequently wrote to NTSA requesting removal of the caveats. A copy of that letter is annexed to the affidavit. The letter is dated 23rd June 2026 and states, among other things, that the suit had been withdrawn and requests NTSA to remove the caveats.
3. On 9th July 2026, the Court gave directions requiring the Applicant to serve the application upon the relevant parties within the stipulated timelines. There is, however, no affidavit of service, return of service, acknowledgment, correspondence or other evidence before the Court demonstrating that the application was served upon NTSA pursuant to those directions.
4. The absence of such evidence militates against the grant of any orders against NTSA. The order sought by the Applicant is directed at NTSA. Yet NTSA is not named as a party to the suit or to the application. The Court cannot properly make an adverse or operative order against a person who has neither been served with the application nor afforded an opportunity to be heard.
5. The Applicant's letter of 23rd June 2026 does not cure this defect. That letter preceded the filing of the present application and merely notified NTSA of the withdrawal of the suit and requested removal of the caveats. It is not evidence of service of the Notice of Motion dated 2nd July 2026, nor of compliance with the specific directions issued by the Court on 9th July 2026.
6. Service of an application is not a mere technical formality. It is the means by which the person against whom an order is sought is brought before the Court and afforded the elementary right to be heard. The Court's directions on service therefore had to be complied with before the application could properly proceed to determination.
7. In the present case, the Applicant has not demonstrated compliance with those directions. Indeed, there is no evidence that service was effected within the prescribed three days’ period or at all. The Court is consequently not satisfied that NTSA was properly before it in respect of the orders sought.
8. The application dated 2nd July 2026 is therefore incompetent for want of compliance with the Court's directions of 9th July 2026 and is liable to dismissal, with costs.
9. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI
THIS 17 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
HON. MR. JUSTICE MOSES ADO
Judge of the High Court
In the Presence of:
Moses C/A
……………… for the Applicant
……………for the Respondent
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Ayub Omar. The Applicant states that the suit was withdrawn on 23rd June 2026 and that its advocates subsequently wrote to NTSA requesting removal of the caveats. A copy of that letter is annexed to the affidavit. The letter is dated 23rd June 2026 and states, among other things, that the suit had been withdrawn and requests NTSA to remove the caveats.
3. On 9th July 2026, the Court gave directions requiring the Applicant to serve the application upon the relevant parties within the stipulated timelines. There is, however, no affidavit of service, return of service, acknowledgment, correspondence or other evidence before the Court demonstrating that the application was served upon NTSA pursuant to those directions.
4. The absence of such evidence militates against the grant of any orders against NTSA. The order sought by the Applicant is directed at NTSA. Yet NTSA is not named as a party to the suit or to the application. The Court cannot properly make an adverse or operative order against a person who has neither been served with the application nor afforded an opportunity to be heard.
5. The Applicant's letter of 23rd June 2026 does not cure this defect. That letter preceded the filing of the present application and merely notified NTSA of the withdrawal of the suit and requested removal of the caveats. It is not evidence of service of the Notice of Motion dated 2nd July 2026, nor of compliance with the specific directions issued by the Court on 9th July 2026.
6. Service of an application is not a mere technical formality. It is the means by which the person against whom an order is sought is brought before the Court and afforded the elementary right to be heard. The Court's directions on service therefore had to be complied with before the application could properly proceed to determination.
7. In the present case, the Applicant has not demonstrated compliance with those directions. Indeed, there is no evidence that service was effected within the prescribed three days’ period or at all. The Court is consequently not satisfied that NTSA was properly before it in respect of the orders sought.
8. The application dated 2nd July 2026 is therefore incompetent for want of compliance with the Court's directions of 9th July 2026 and is liable to dismissal, with costs.
9. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI
THIS 17 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
HON. MR. JUSTICE MOSES ADO
Judge of the High Court
In the Presence of:
Moses C/A
……………… for the Applicant
……………for the Respondent