Scribd
Upload
64 views2 pages

Dock Workers Union of Kenya V Kenya Ports Authority Portside Freight Terminals Limited & Another (Interested Parties) - 2021 - eKLR

The court summarized the key details of the case between the Dock Workers Union of Kenya and Kenya Ports Authority. The union filed a petition arguing the ports authority illegally leased ports facilities to private companies and outsourced inspection duties. However, the court ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the issues, as the union did not first request information or seek review from the Commission on Administrative Justice as required by the Access to Information Act. The court found no compelling reasons existed for it to order the production of documents rather than following the proper procedures under the Act.

Uploaded by

Hubert Wanyeki
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
64 views2 pages

Dock Workers Union of Kenya V Kenya Ports Authority Portside Freight Terminals Limited & Another (Interested Parties) - 2021 - eKLR

The court summarized the key details of the case between the Dock Workers Union of Kenya and Kenya Ports Authority. The union filed a petition arguing the ports authority illegally leased ports facilities to private companies and outsourced inspection duties. However, the court ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the issues, as the union did not first request information or seek review from the Commission on Administrative Justice as required by the Access to Information Act. The court found no compelling reasons existed for it to order the production of documents rather than following the proper procedures under the Act.

Uploaded by

Hubert Wanyeki
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Dock Workers Union of Kenya v Kenya Ports Authority; Portside Freight Terminals Limited &

another (Interested Parties) [2021] eKLR

DOCK WORKERS UNION OF KENYA - PETITIONER

VERSUS

KENYA PORTS AUTHORITY - RESPONDENT

Interested Parties

1. PORTSIDE FREIGHT TERMINALS LIMITED

2. MERCANTILE CARGO TERMINAL

3. OPERATIONS LIMITED

Facts of the case


1. The Application is premised on the grounds that the Respondent has leased out sheds 7
and 8 to the 1st Interested Party to handling of operations contrary to sections 8, 9, 10
and 12 of the Kenya Ports Authority Act.
2. Further, the Respondent has issued a notice dated the 6/6/2020 stating that the 2nd
Interested Party shall be responsible for verification of imported goods in the Country.
3. The Applicant's main contention is that loading and offloading is an exclusive statutory
duty of the Respondent. The Applicant avers that inspection of goods is a function of the
customs officer of the Respondent as well as the Kenya Bureau of Standards.
4. The Applicant in its application states that the Respondent, is a public entity and does
not have power to lease sheds 7 and 8 and that they are not allowed under the Kenya
Ports Authority Act to outsource for services without public participation.
5. The Applicant wrote two letters dated the 17/7/ 2020 and 18/8/2020 to the Respondent
requesting for documents pursuant to Article 35 of the Constitution. The Respondent
responded via letters dated 22/7/ 2020 and 7/9/2020 objecting to the request.

Issues
1. The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the issues before it
2. The Applicant has not followed the set-out procedures as provided under the Access to
Information Act No. 31 of 2016

Analysis and judgement

● The Access to Information Act confers power to the Commission on Administrative


Justice to review decisions of a public entity or a private body in relation to request for
access to information.
● There existed an avenue for the Applicant to request for information from the
Respondent as provided under Section 14 of the Access to Information Act which
provides inter alia that;
an applicant may apply in writing to the Commission requesting a review of any of the following
decisions of a public entity or private body in relation to a request for access to information—

(a) a decision refusing to grant access to the information applied for;

● Once the Respondent refused to grant their wishes to produce documents via the letters
22/7/2020 and 7/9/2020, the Applicant ought to have applied for review to the
Commission on Administrative Justice as provided under the Access to Information Act.
● The court is allowed to exempt a party from alternative remedy, but the same is only
possible where the Applicant has presented a compelling case.
● The Applicant herein has not shown any compelling reasons as to why the Court should
order the Respondents to produce the documents as sought.
● Under section 23 of the Access to Information Act No. 31 of 2016, the High Court has
been established to have appellate jurisdiction.
● “I do not think that Parliament intended to bestow both original and appellate jurisdiction
on the High Court in matters where the Commission on Administrative Justice has been
given jurisdiction under the Access to Information Act.”
● Thus thus court lacks jurisdiction to entertain issues before it.

You might also like