Court stops NTSA planned instant fines system
The High Court in Nairobi suspended the National Transport and Safety Authority’s (NTSA) new automated instant fines system pending hearing and determination of a petition filed by Sharia mtaani.
In orders issued, Justice Bahati Mwamuye granted conservatory orders restraining NTSA, its Director-General, and KCB Bank Kenya joined as an interested party from “issuing, generating, demanding or enforcing instant or automated traffic penalties produced through algorithmic or other automated decision-making systems.”
The orders were issued after an urgent petition was filed by public benefit organisation Sheria Mtaani na Shadrack Wambui, challenging a public notice issued by NTSA on March 9, 2026 announcing the rollout of what it described as an “instant fines traffic management system.”
According to court documents, the system purported to automatically detect traffic violations and issue notifications via SMS “without human intervention,” requiring motorists to pay fines within seven days through KCB branch networks.
The notice warned that unpaid fines would accrue interest and that motorists with pending fines would be blocked from transacting on NTSA service platforms.
The petitioner contended that the system fundamentally alters how criminal liability for traffic offences is determined in Kenya, effectively establishing a parallel enforcement mechanism that bypasses constitutional safeguards.
“Traffic offences under the Traffic Act are criminal offences,” read the court documents.
“The NTSA automated system functions simultaneously as accusation, determination, and penalty. The motorist is directed to pay the fine within seven days, failing which additional consequences arise.”
Through their lawyer Danstan Omari, Sharia Mtaani argue that the system violates Article 47 of the Constitution on fair administrative action, Article 50 on the right to a fair hearing, and Article 157, which vests prosecutorial authority exclusively in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP).
The petitioner argued that regardless of whether an alleged offender admits to the offence or not, the system compels attendance in court, where a criminal process commences, yet the ODPP is entirely absent from the charging process.
“In short, once the Respondents system notifies you of an offence, you stand charged,” says Omari.
Omari said Data Protection Act guarantees every data subject the right not to be subjected to a decision based solely on automated processing that produces legal effects.
“The impugned NTSA notice does none of these things. It merely informs the public that the system is automated and directs motorists to pay the resulting fine,” the petitioner argued.
“The notice does not disclose the basis upon which the alleged violation is detected, the logic of the automated decision-making system, the reliability or calibration of the equipment employed, the safeguards against error, or the procedure by which an affected person may obtain human review.”
The petition argued that the system risks imposing criminal liability on individuals who were not in control of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence
Omari said Section 8 of the Traffic Act establishes only a rebuttable presumption that the registered owner of a vehicle is the owner, but does not convert registered owners into automatic perpetrators of offences committed by their vehicles.
“The automated fines system does not appear to distinguish between the driver and the registered owner,” read the court documents.
Sheria mtaani contended that criminal fines under Kenyan law are ordinarily paid through judiciary-designated channels.
Omari argued that the National Transport and Safety Authority Act establishes the National Road Transport and Safety Fund, into which monies accruing to the Authority must be paid.
Justice Mwamuye directed the petitioner to serve all respondents and the interested party with the application, petition, and court orders by close of business tomorrow.
The respondents and interested party were directed to file their responses by March 20, with the petitioner granted leave to file a rejoinder by March 27.
The matter will be mentioned on April 9 to confirm compliance and take directions on expedited hearing and determination.
“The petitioner shall serve the respondents and the interested party with the application, petition, and this court order in both hardcopy and softcopy immediately,” the court directed.