The impasse between Nyeri County Government and matatu operators over the relocation of matatus to Field Marshal Muthoni Kirima Bus Park has taken a new turn after the High Court in Nyeri granted both parties permission to enter into mediation.
Through their lawyer, Waweru Kiragu, the 2NK Sacco, Nyena Sacco, 4NT Sacco, Namuga Sacco, 3NCK Sacco, NIM Sacco, and Gakanango Sacco sought 30 days to iron out the contentious issues that have prevented them from relocating to the Sh 600 million ultra-modern terminus.
Appearing before Justice Martin Muya, Kiragu said that his clients had expressed their willingness to negotiate with the county government on how to resolve the standoff.
He, however, said that should the county fail to incorporate the views of the matatu operators during the mediation process, the court should proceed to hear their applications filed before it.
“I have talked with the County Attorney Kimani Rucuiya on whether he would want this matter to be dealt with by way of negotiation or mediation. We agreed that we can seek 30 days within which parties could sit and agree on some of the issues that both parties are raising,” Kiragu told the court.
“If we are able to agree, we will record consent. If we are not able to agree, then we will proceed with both applications and we have to be heard on merit."
The legal tussle pitting the Nyeri County Government and the matatu operators started on November 4, when the seven matatu Saccos moved to court to block the planned relocation to the new terminus.
The petitioners told the court that the Executive Order to vacate the three bus termini within Nyeri CBD was issued against the principle of adequate public participation and accountability as enshrined in the constitution.
They also argued that the order issued by the County Executive in charge of Transport and Infrastructure, Eng Abdi Hanif Hussein, showed bias and discrimination against the matatu operators’ place of business.
Further, they termed the order as a threat and an attempt to finish their matatu business and their business goodwill given that the county was pushing them to a new and unknown set up far from Nyeri CBD.
Additionally, the petitioners told the courts that they had loans from Saccos and banks and they may not be able to meet their monthly repayment obligations and pay requisite county fees and licenses due to loss of income occasioned by the relocation.
While issuing the conservatory orders halting the removal of the 8 petitioners from the Nyeri CBD on November 15, Justice Kizito Magare stated that notice failed to consider public interest in the orderly and smooth implementation of the policy.
According to Justice Magare, the county government failed to put into consideration the immediate ramifications that the notice would have on both the county government and the matatu operators.
But the county of Nyeri moved to the High Court on November 26, seeking to lift Justice Magare’s orders. The county said that the petitioners had obtained the conservatory orders through misrepresentation and deliberate concealment of facts.
Further, the county government argued that the conservatory orders are discriminatory and only factored in the eight petitioners leaving out other Public Service Transport providers operating in the Nyeri CBD.
“The conservatory orders are discriminatory as it only applies to the petitioners in the midst of other Public Service Transport Providers and the orders granted will result in complete chaos should the respondent attempt to effectuate the impugned notice against the rest of the affected persons who are not petitioners,” said the county attorney.
The county has also cited continued loss of revenue on their part on account of poor regulation of public transport parking within Nyeri town resulting from the court order. They say that matatu operators will not suffer any loss as their economic activities will not be halted by the relocation to the new terminus.
In making his determination on the matter, Justice Muya has directed that the conservatory orders barring the county government from effecting the relocation order be extended as the parties move to the negotiating table.
He has also directed that the application by the county government seeking to lift the conservatory be heard by Justice Magare, who issued them in the first instance.
“If the conservatory orders were granted by Justice Magare, I believe that he should be the one hearing the application to set aside those conservatory orders. There will be a mention before him for further directions,” stated Justice Muya.
The case will proceed on January 21, 2025, before Justice Magare.
