NTSA in court, seeks case challenging rollout of instant traffic fines be withdrawn

The National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) asked the High Court to find that continuing with the case challenging the rollout of its Instant Fines Management System would amount to an academic exercise and an unnecessary use of judicial time.

NTSA said in a replying affidavit the petition has been overtaken by events following its withdrawal.

NTSA Director General Odhiambo Kondiwa told the court that the authority formally withdrew the planned rollout of the Instant Fines Management System on March 27, 2026.

The petition was filed by Sheria Mtaani alongside lawyer Shadrack Wambui, who had challenged the legality and implementation of the system.

The petitioners told the court that the instant fines system was unconstitutional, arguing that it risked violating due process and fair hearing rights by allowing motorists to be fined instantly without adequate legal safeguards.

Kondiwa explained that the withdrawal was prompted by the need to further clarify procedural and operational aspects, including how minor traffic offences would be handled, as well as to allow for public sensitisation and alignment with the law.

He stated that as a result, the decision being challenged no longer exists and no enforcement action is currently being undertaken under the instant fines framework.

“There is presently no operational Instant Fines Management System,” he said.

NTSA, through its lawyers invoked the doctrine of mootness, arguing that courts do not determine disputes where there is no longer a live controversy.

NTSA argued that the issues raised in the petition no longer require determination, as they have been overtaken by events.

The authority maintained that it remains committed to implementing lawful, transparent, and procedurally sound mechanisms to enhance road safety and enforce traffic laws in line with the Constitution.

Lawyer Danstan Omari, for the petitioner, had argued that the proposed instant fines regime risked bypassing the courts by allowing penalties to be imposed administratively, raising concerns over potential abuse and the erosion of motorists’ constitutional rights.

Meanwhile, Safaricom PLC moved to court seeking to halt proceedings in a constitutional petition filed by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), arguing that a similar and earlier case already before the court should be heard first.

In an application filed before the High Court in Nairobi, Safaricom asked the court to stay the current proceedings in a data sharing case, either entirely or at least as they relate to the company, pending the hearing and determination of another case.

The earlier case, David Ooga Mokaya vs Safaricom PLC & 3 Others, directly challenged whether Safaricom unlawfully disclosed subscriber data, including personal information, call records, location data, and SIM registration details to investigative agencies.

Safaricom argues that the issues raised in LSK’s petition are largely similar and heavily rely on the outcome of the Mokaya case.

According to the telco, allowing both matters to proceed simultaneously risked duplicating evidence, witnesses, and legal arguments, while also opening the door to conflicting court decisions.

“The determination of the Mokaya Petition will either resolve the issues entirely or significantly narrow the questions remaining for determination,” the company states in its court filings.

The firm further contended that it would be more efficient and fair for the Mokaya case to be heard first, or alternatively, be treated as the lead matter, given the overlap in facts and legal questions, particularly on the alleged disclosure of subscriber data.

The application, supported by an affidavit sworn by Daniel Mwenja Ndaba, also sought priority hearing of the request and a temporary stay of proceedings in LSK’s petition until the matter is resolved.

Safaricom maintained that the application has been made in good faith and is necessary to prevent what it terms as duplication of proceedings and possible abuse of the court process.