Two separate constitutional petitions have been filed before the High Court in Nairobi seeking to suspend the implementation of the Traffic (Motor Vehicle Inspection) Rules, 2026, just days before the regulations are scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026.
The two petitions, filed by constitutional lawyer Charles Mugane and public interest organisation Sheria Mtaani, separately challenge the legality and constitutionality of the new inspection regime introduced by the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA).
The rules, published under Legal Notice No. 13 of 2026 in February, require all privately owned motor vehicles that are more than four years old to undergo mandatory annual inspections.
Charles Mugane filed the first petition on June 28, naming NTSA and the Attorney General as respondents.
The Law Society of Kenya, Katiba Institute and the Kenya Human Rights Commission have been listed as interested parties.
A day later, Sheria Mtaani, through lawyer Jeff Kangethe, filed a second petition against NTSA, the Cabinet Secretary for Roads and Transport and the Attorney General, challenging specific provisions of the regulations.
Both petitions argue that the rules were enacted in violation of constitutional and statutory requirements for public participation.
In his petition, Mugane contends that NTSA violated Article 10 of the Constitution by publishing the regulations without meaningful public participation.
He argued that the rules were “gazetted in the opaquest way” and that no recognised process of public participation was undertaken before they were introduced.
“The purported passing of the impugned Rules fell short of the fundamental constitutional principle of public participation which is an indispensable element of democracy…,” says Mugane.
Sheria Mtaani similarly argues that the regulations contravene the Statutory Instruments Act, 2013, which requires public consultation and the preparation of a Regulatory Impact Statement before regulations imposing substantial financial obligations on the public are enacted.
The organisation maintains that there is no evidence the mandatory consultation process took place before the rules were published.
“The constitutional obligation is qualitative rather than formal and requires genuine public engagement before burdens of this magnitude are imposed upon the citizens,” said Kangethe.
The petitions also challenge the financial obligations imposed on motorists, arguing that the regulations require vehicle owners to pay both a booking fee to NTSA and an inspection fee to designated testing centres, while creating criminal offences punishable by fines of up to Sh20,000 or imprisonment for up to six months.
Although both petitions seek to halt the implementation of the regulations, they differ in the scope of relief sought.
Mugane asked the court to declare the entire Legal Notice No. 13 of 2026 unconstitutional and to quash it in its entirety.
Sheria Mtaani, on the other hand, specifically challenged Rule 3(1), which introduces mandatory annual inspections for private vehicles over four years old,Rule 12(2), which provides for the de-registration of salvage vehicles, Rule 30(1)(d), which creates criminal offences and the First Schedule, which sets out the applicable fees.
The organisation further argued that the four-year inspection threshold is irrational and discriminatory, that the process for classifying salvage vehicles lacks procedural safeguards, and that the booking fees amount to an unlawful tax imposed without parliamentary approval, contrary to Article 210(1) of the Constitution.
Both petitions also relied on a public notice issued by NTSA between June 26 and June 28 in which the Authority informed motorists that traffic officers would not immediately enforce the mandatory inspection requirement during roadside checks and that enforcement modalities would be communicated later.
According to the petitioners, the notice demonstrates that the regulations are not operationally ready for implementation despite their scheduled commencement date.
Both petitioners asked the High Court to issue conservatory orders suspending the implementation and enforcement of the disputed regulations pending the hearing and determination of their constitutional challenges.
The High Court is expected to consider the applications for conservatory orders on an urgent basis.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
