The Transport Licensing Appeals Tribunal has temporarily lifted the revocation of Nicco Movers Ltd's operating licence, allowing the public service vehicle operator to resume operations pending the hearing and determination of its appeal.
The National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) suspended the company's operations on June 9, citing accidents, public safety concerns, fleet management failures and regulatory non-compliance.
In a ruling delivered on Thursday, the tribunal stayed the enforcement of NTSA's decision but directed the company to meet safety compliance requirements within seven days.
"The implementation and enforcement of the decision dated June 9, 2026, is hereby suspended pending the hearing and determination of the appeal," tribunal chairperson Dr Adrian Kamotho ruled.
He added that NTSA would be at liberty to reinstate the suspension should the company fail to comply within the stipulated period.
Through lawyer Danstan Omari, Nicco Movers had sought urgent intervention, arguing that the revocation had grounded its fleet, disrupted transport services and threatened the livelihoods of hundreds of employees, drivers and support staff.
The company told the tribunal that the decision also put at risk investments worth more than Sh1 billion belonging to more than 110 investors associated with the Sacco. It argued that compliant vehicle owners were being punished for the actions of a few operators.
The tribunal found that the appeal raised arguable issues, including allegations of procedural unfairness, denial of a fair hearing and whether the penalty imposed was proportionate to the alleged violations.
It further noted concerns over whether revoking the entire operator's licence unfairly affected investors and vehicle owners who had complied with regulatory requirements.
The tribunal observed that while some vehicles had been implicated in serious traffic offences, others appeared willing to comply with inspections and regulatory directives. It also questioned whether less severe enforcement measures could have achieved the intended regulatory objective.
NTSA defended its decision, insisting that public safety must take precedence over economic considerations.
Director-General George Njao told the tribunal that the authority acted within its statutory mandate after attempts to secure compliance failed.
"We have a responsibility under the law to ensure public and road safety. Revocation was only undertaken after efforts to resolve the issues administratively proved unsuccessful," Mr Njao said.
According to NTSA, the operator failed to report mandatory safety incidents, could not account for drivers involved in fatal crashes and repeatedly breached operational requirements.
The authority cited two fatal accidents involving vehicles linked to the Sacco. In one incident, a Kenyatta University student was knocked dead near Kahawa Sukari on January 11. In another, a passenger died after being thrown from a moving vehicle.
NTSA further told the tribunal that a compliance audit revealed widespread breaches within the fleet, including vehicles that were not transmitting speed governor data and others operating above prescribed speed limits. It said 51 vehicles had been flagged for speeding violations, placing the operator below the minimum compliance threshold required for licensing.
In its defence, Nicco Movers said it had taken corrective measures, including monitoring vehicle inspection certificates to ensure timely renewals, strengthening speed governor oversight through approved service providers and enhancing driver training on road safety and compliance in collaboration with NTSA officers.
Mr Omari argued that the revocation amounted to a "death sentence" for investors and urged the tribunal to allow the Sacco to continue operating under strict compliance conditions pending the determination of the appeal.
He also challenged the legality of the revocation process, citing alleged inconsistencies in dates contained in NTSA's show-cause notices and revocation letter, which he said raised questions about procedural fairness.
In granting the interim orders, the tribunal held that denying relief at this stage could render the appeal nugatory if the company ultimately succeeds.
