By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

C.A. FARMERS BUS v. TRANSOPRT LICENSING (FORBER, Ag. P) 781In the matter of an application by (the applicants ) for leave to apply for an orderof Certiorari and In the matter of Appeals No. 11 to 6 inclusive 30,32-35 inclusive,37.39 41-43 inclusive and 46=48 inclusive all of 1958 of the Transport LicinsinAppeal Tribunal.We may say we entirely agree with the view expressed by the learned judges ofthe Supreme Court that the application concerned nineteen separate and distinctappeals which should not have been joined in one application. As in MohamedAhmed’s (1) case if the proper form had been used, the error would have beenobvious.Leave having been granted, the notice of motion should have been instituted“RvThe Transport Licinsing Appeal TribunalEx parte(the applicants)So far as the appeal to this court is concerned, the persons really interested inresisting the appeal are the Overseas Touring Co. (E.A) Ltd and the Kenya BusServices Ltd., who were the objectors before the Transport Licensing AppealTribunal. In the circumstances we think they should be added o the heading asinterested parties. The appeal should therefore be instituted“R.Appellantv.The Transport Licensing Appeal Tribunal ..RespondentsandThe Overseas Touring Co. (E.A. Ltd. .. interested partiesThe Kenya Bus Services Ltd.Ex parteThe applicantsThe notice of appeal and other documents in the appeal should be amendedaccordingly .Ordre that the notice of appeal and other documentsBe amended as shown in the rulingAdvoctes: Sirley & Kean, Nairobi (For the applicants); the Attorney –GeneralKenya (for the respondent) Daly & Figgis, Nairobi (for the interested parties)316