Transport operator-Nicco Movers Limited has secured interim court orders in its bid to resume lawful operations with vehicles verified as roadworthy, as a legal dispute over the suspension of its Public Service Vehicle (PSV) operator’s licence continues.

Justice Janet Mulwa certified the operator’s application as urgent, directed that it be served forthwith and allowed the respondents seven days to file their responses.

The court further directed that, upon service of the responses, the applicant could file any necessary further affidavits within seven days, with parties required to return to court on November 10, 2026, for directions on the disposal of the motion.

” These prayers seek limited interim relief against the implementation of the Transport Licensing Appeals Board’s decision suspending the operator’s PSV licence,” reads court papers

Through lawyer Danstan Omari the application by the matatu sacco seeks to review and vary a ruling delivered on October 21, 2026, which dismissed an earlier application dated September 1, 2026.

The operator argues that the previous ruling overlooked evidence of attempted compliance with regulatory requirements, particularly vehicle inspection records bearing National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) stamps and results marked “PASS” following second inspections.

“The Applicant recognizes the deaths and public-safety concerns addressed in the Tribunal judgment. It seeks no protection for a defective vehicle or an unqualified crew member, and proposes proportionate protection for passengers alongside preservation of a viable appeal. The question therefore before the court, is whether there is need to suspend the Appellant’s license despite demonstration by the Applicant that it is compliant and its fleet is not a safety concern pending the hearing of the Appeal,” argues Nicco movers

According to the application, the earlier court bundle contained inspection records and receipts relating to vehicles that had undergone re-inspection.

The applicant maintains that these documents were material to determining whether it had taken steps to comply with the directives issued by the Transport Licensing Appeals Board in its judgment of August 31, 2026, in case number TLAB/E013/2026.

Lawyer Omari argues that passing vehicle inspections should have been distinguished from the broader dispute over whether all the regulatory concerns raised against the operator had been addressed.

The operator is now asking the court to reconsider its finding that there was no evidence of attempted compliance and to consider a more targeted interim remedy rather than maintaining a blanket suspension.

At the centre of the application is a request to allow only vehicles individually inspected and confirmed by NTSA to meet the applicable statutory requirements to resume operations.

The proposed conditions include valid insurance, PSV licensing, roadworthiness certification and compliance by drivers and conductors with relevant legal requirements.

The applicant says the relief would not extend to defective vehicles or those whose crews fail to meet statutory standards. Vehicles that have not been verified, or that fail any applicable requirement, would remain excluded from operations.

The operator has also offered to provide security, an undertaking or a guarantee as directed by the court, alongside periodic compliance reports and continued regulatory oversight.

It argues that such conditions would balance public safety with the need to preserve its business pending determination of the substantive appeal.

The application challenges the basis on which the operator’s licence was suspended following the tribunal’s judgment.

The applicant says it had addressed concerns , while the remaining issues required action by other organisations involved in the compliance process.

It further disputes the recommendation that the licence be revoked over alleged failure to produce drivers linked to fatal crashes.

According to the application, the Directorate of Criminal Investigations had not traced the drivers in question, and there was no evidence presented to the tribunal or the court that the operator was concealing them or knew their whereabouts.

These assertions form part of the operator’s arguments and have not been established as findings of the court.

The applicant also points to Section 34(3) of the National Transport and Safety Authority Act, which permits the authority, in lieu of suspending or revoking a carrier’s licence, to remove specified vehicles from the licence or reduce the authorised fleet.

It argues that the provision supports consideration of a vehicle specific regulatory response instead of a measure that prevents the entire licensed fleet from operating.

The operator has also presented additional financial records in support of its claim that continued suspension would cause substantial losses.

According to the application, a six-month bank statement covering April 21 to October 21, 2026, records credits of Sh105,029,803 and debits of Sh105,131,867.

The figures translate to average monthly gross credits of approximately Sh17.5 million.

The applicant further cites a loan repayment of Sh2.5 million made on October 21, 2026, and a closing bank balance of Sh388,448.

“The statement records KES 105,029,803 in credits and KES 105,131,867 in debits for 21 April-21 October 2026, equivalent to approximately KES 17,504,967 average monthly gross credits, together with a loan repayment of KES 2,500,000 on 21 October 2026 and a closing balance of KES 388,448. Continued blanket cessation jeopardises future receipts, employee livelihoods and the Applicant’s ability to meet fixed liabilities.
The substantial loss to be incurred by the Appellant cannot and should not be compensated at the expense of tax payer funds should the Appeal succeed as it has presented weighty grounds, some of which is the Appellant’s compliance with the
Respondent’s requirements which the Honourable Tribunal Chair failed to take into consideration and properly examine the issue of compliance,” reads court papers

Nicco movers argues that continued cessation of operations threatens future business receipts, employees’ livelihoods and its ability to meet existing financial obligations.

The operator says the additional records address concerns raised in the October 21 ruling regarding the particularisation of substantial loss and projected financial exposure.

It maintains that the financial consequences should be considered alongside the public interest in ensuring that only compliant vehicles operate.

The operator says it filed the review application one day after the ruling it challenges, arguing that it acted promptly and without undue delay.

It also relies on the court’s earlier finding that the substantive appeal had been properly instituted.

The application asks the court to review the earlier decision on the grounds of an alleged material oversight and other sufficient reasons. In the alternative, it seeks fresh, narrowly tailored interim orders based on current vehicle-specific compliance.

The applicant says it is not asking the court to disregard the safety concerns arising from fatal crashes, but to adopt a proportionate arrangement that protects passengers while allowing verified vehicles to operate.

The respondents have been given seven days to respond to the application.

The matter is scheduled to return before Justice Mulwa on November 10, 2026, for directions on how the application will be disposed of.