Court Orders Matatu Owner to Produce Missing Driver.

Updated: November 30, 2013

THE High Court has declined to order the release of a matatu until its owner brings to court his driver. The driver vanished more than a year ago after committing a traffic offence. Lady Justice Lydia Achode said infringement of the rights and freedoms of Patrick Irungu Kimani cannot be verified by asking him to avail his employee’s documents.

The court was told that the driver, Michael Burugu Kahatha was spotted by traffic police officers on patrol along Tom Mboya Avenue, driving matatu KBS 615Z without uniform. He committed the offence on September 10, last year. He was arrested but the officers directed him to take the passengers to the destination and later present himself to court. He vanished forcing the police to impound the vehicle.

The matatu owner later moved to court seeking the release of the vehicle, an application that was allowed on condition that Kimani produces Kahatha in court together with his employment records.

Kimani together with Nawasaku Savings and Credit Cooperative Society ltd, were not satisfied with the decision and moved to the High Court.

When they appeared before Justice Achode, state counsel Stella Nyamweya asked the court to dismiss the case arguing that no law has been infringed.

Justice Achode said in the ruling that the requirement that every employer should have the identification documents of his employer is legal.He said that section 107 of the Traffic Act provides for the detention of vehicles whose drivers have committed a traffic offence.

“It is the duty of the owner of the motor vehicle to provide the particulars of his driver. One year down the line, there is no evidence that the petitioner complied with the orders of the court,” Achode said.

Justice Achode said the particulars of the “errant driver” have not been attached to the petition before her, even if the driver has since left employment.

She said the violation of existing laws cannot be hidden behind perceived infringement of one’s rights.The court also faulted the petition saying the applicant has failed to plead with a degree of precision required, on the complaint. “This petition has failed to do, and I cannot comprehend in what manner the court can assist him, if all he is making are vague allusions to the infringement of unspecified constitutional rights,” The Judge said.


News Source: allAfrica

One Comment

  1. Verkauf

    December 2, 2013 at 8:30 am

    Informative article, just what I was lookking for.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>