Court rejects stay of Mombasa County decision on port parking fees

The Supreme Court has refused to issue an order temporarily staying a decision by the Mombasa County Government to appoint the Kenya Ports Authority as its parking fee collector at the port.

Judge Olga Sewe ruled that it was in the interest of justice to hear the case. Therefore, the judge refused to issue the order on an application filed by an association of drivers and owners of trucks transporting goods to and from the port of Mombasa.

The Road Hauliers Association of Kenya (RHAK) has applied to the Court for permission to seek quashing and annulment of the County Government decision implemented by the KPA.

The association had requested a stay of the decision through its lawyer Derrick Odhiambo, arguing that the complainants were being treated unfairly.

However, the district government and the KPA, through their lawyers, refused to issue the interim injunctions.

Judge Sewe invited the parties to file their responses and set May 30 as the date for the decision.

RHAK also asks the court for permission to seek an order compelling the defendants to reverse their decision. They want the county to return to the previous system of collecting parking fees and fines and to provide books of irregular collections and subsequent refunds.

By the decision of the district government in the form of a notification from the managing director of the KPA, the authority is appointed as the tax collector on behalf of the district government.

In its application for review of the decision before the High Court in Mombasa, RHAK states that the announcement, the implementation of which began on May 15, was made without input, participation and consultation of the association and the public.

“The said notice proposes to increase the daily parking fees from Sh600 to Sh700 without due process, public participation and justification, which is in contravention of public finance principles.”

RHAK states that the implementation of the communication constitutes oppression and is contrary to the legitimate expectations that the company could have had: the payment of the duties and penalties as it does throughout the year or an adequate communication allowing it to prepare and explain the situation to its customers.

“The nature of the deal is based on various commitments, schedules and legally binding agreements of which the defendants were not aware when they began implementing the suppressive notice,” the lawsuit states.

According to RHAK, an increase in parking fees, taxes and fines affects their livelihood.

The association argues that the county government and the KPA erected tents at the entrances of all KPA establishments in which their members’ motor vehicles were tied up and that they unlawfully charged a parking fee of Sh700 and a fine of Sh600 per motor vehicle.

RHAK submits that, in the event that the orders are not granted, the insistence on enforcing the Respondents’ decision will perpetuate the illegality and aggravate confusion, embarrassment, loss and prejudice to them (the Members) and other users and owners of the trucks at the Port.

The applicants also seek permission from the Court to apply for an order restraining the respondents from increasing the parking charges payable and from changing the method of collection provided for in the notice.

RHAK wants the Court to grant leave to make an application for a stay of orders which would suspend the defendant’s decision.