By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

The Supreme Court of Kenya dismissed an application by the appellants for anorder of certiorari directed to the Transport Licensing Appeal Tribunal, but gavecondition leave to appeal. The appeal having been lodgedn the appellants thenmoved the appellate court to vary the order of the Supreme Court so that leave toappeal might become unconditional. At the hearing of this application which wasrefused the court commented on the form of the proceedings and the headings ofthe application to the Supreme Court and of the appeal andHeld: prerogative ordes are issued in the name of the Crown and applications forsuch orders must be correctly instituted.Mohamed Ahmed v.R.(1957) E.A) followedOrder that the notice of appeal and other documents be amended as shown inthe ruling.Case referred toMohamed Ahmed v. R. (1957) E.A. 523 (C.V.)M. Kean for the appellants.F. De F. Stratton (Crown Cousel, Kenya) for the respondent/P.J.S. Hewet for interested partiesAugust 21 FORBES, Ag, P., read the following ruling of the court this was anapplication by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the applicants) in anappeal which is pending before this court. The appeal is against an order of theSupreme Court dismissing with costs an application for an order of certioraridirected to the Transport Licensing Appeal Tribunal relating to certain roadservice licenses which had been granted to the applicants. The application to thiscourt was for variation of the order of the Supreme Court granting leave to appealso that leave might be unconditional the order of the transport licensing AppealTribunal as confirmed by the Supreme court stayed and the licences in questionremain in force as originally granted pending the hearing of the appeal Werefused the application with costs but undertook to give a ruling on a matter offormThe applicants number nineteen in all and for the sake of brevity they will bereferred to in the forms below as (the applicants) where in the actual form thenames were or should be set out in full. The record of the appeal, which wasbefore us (Mr. Kean flr the applicants intimated that a supplementary recordwould be filed in due course) does not contain the original application to a judgeof the Supreme Court for leave to apply for an order of certiorari in pursuance ofr. 1 of O. LIII of the Civil and in the matter of: An application for an order ofCertiorari directed to The Transport Licensing Appeal Tribunal1 to 19 the application)314