Nicco Movers Seeks Court Approval to Resume PSV Operations

NAIROBI, Kenya — Transport operator Nicco Movers Limited has secured interim court orders in its bid to resume operations with vehicles verified as roadworthy, as it challenges the suspension of its Public Service Vehicle (PSV) operator’s licence.

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

The court further allowed Nicco Movers to file any necessary supplementary affidavits within seven days after receiving the responses. The matter is scheduled to return to court on November 10, 2026, for directions on the disposal of the application.

The case centres on the operator’s request for a review of a ruling delivered on October 21, 2026, which dismissed an earlier application dated September 1, 2026.

Through lawyer Danstan Omari, Nicco Movers is seeking to overturn or vary the earlier decision, arguing that the court did not adequately consider evidence showing that the company had attempted to comply with regulatory requirements.

The operator is asking for a targeted solution that would allow only vehicles individually inspected and confirmed to meet statutory requirements to return to the road.

Nicco Movers Challenges Previous Court Ruling

In its application, Nicco Movers argues that the October 21 ruling overlooked inspection records and receipts relating to vehicles that had undergone re-inspection by the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA).

According to the company, some of the inspection records bore NTSA stamps and results marked “PASS”, which it says demonstrated progress towards compliance with the requirements imposed by the Transport Licensing Appeals Board.

The operator maintains that the documents were material to determining whether it had taken the necessary steps to address the concerns raised in the tribunal’s judgment delivered on August 31, 2026, in case number TLAB/E013/2026.

Omari argues that evidence of individual vehicles passing inspection should have been distinguished from the broader question of whether every regulatory concern involving the company had been resolved.

Nicco Movers is therefore asking the court to reconsider its finding that there was no evidence of attempted compliance and to consider a more limited interim remedy while the substantive appeal proceeds.

The claims form part of the operator’s arguments and have yet to be established as findings by the court.

Operator Proposes Vehicle-Specific Safety Conditions

At the centre of the application is a request to allow only vehicles individually inspected and verified by NTSA to resume operations.

Under the proposed arrangement, each vehicle would be required to meet the applicable legal and regulatory standards, including valid insurance, PSV licensing and roadworthiness certification.

Drivers and conductors would also be required to satisfy the relevant statutory requirements.

Vehicles that have not been verified, or that fail to meet any applicable safety or licensing condition, would remain barred from operating.

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

Nicco Movers argues that such conditions would protect passengers while preventing a blanket suspension from unnecessarily affecting vehicles that have independently met the required standards.

“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,” the application states.

The operator maintains that the proposed arrangement would preserve public safety while allowing it to pursue its appeal without completely shutting down its operations.

Fatal Crash Concerns Remain Central to the Dispute

The suspension of Nicco Movers’ licence followed proceedings before the Transport Licensing Appeals Board, which addressed road safety concerns, including issues involving drivers linked to fatal crashes.

In its latest application, the operator disputes the recommendation to revoke its licence over its alleged failure to produce the drivers in question.

According to Nicco Movers, the Directorate of Criminal Investigations had not traced the drivers, and no evidence was presented before the tribunal or court to establish that the company was concealing them or knew their whereabouts.

These assertions remain the operator’s position and are not established findings of the court.

The case highlights the challenge of balancing accountability for road safety incidents with the legal rights of transport operators seeking to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements.

Nicco Movers Cites NTSA Act in Bid for Limited Relief

The operator has also relied on Section 34(3) of the National Transport and Safety Authority Act, arguing that the law provides for alternatives to suspending or revoking a carrier’s licence.

According to the application, the provision allows the authority, in lieu of suspension or revocation, to remove specified vehicles from a licence or reduce the authorised fleet.

Nicco Movers argues that this supports consideration of a vehicle-specific regulatory response instead of a measure that prevents its entire licensed fleet from operating.

The company says its proposal would enable regulators to exclude any vehicle that fails to meet the prescribed standards while permitting verified vehicles to continue serving passengers.

The court will have to consider the operator’s arguments alongside the safety concerns and regulatory issues raised in the underlying proceedings.

Financial Records Highlight Cost of Continued Suspension

Nicco Movers has submitted additional financial records to support its claim that continued suspension of its operations would cause substantial losses.

According to the application, a six-month bank statement covering April 21 to October 21, 2026, recorded credits of KSh105,029,803 and debits of KSh105,131,867.

The figures translate to average monthly gross credits of approximately KSh17.5 million.

The company also cited a loan repayment of KSh2.5 million made on October 21, 2026, and a closing bank balance of KSh388,448.

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

The operator maintains that the additional financial records address concerns raised in the October 21 ruling regarding the specific evidence supporting its claim of substantial loss.

It further argues that the financial consequences of a blanket suspension should be weighed against a more targeted arrangement that allows only compliant vehicles to operate.

The financial figures and projected losses were presented by the applicant in support of its case and have not been independently established as findings by the court.

Operator Says Review Application Was Filed Promptly

Nicco Movers says it filed the review application one day after the October 21 ruling, arguing that it acted promptly and without undue delay.

The company is asking the court to reconsider the earlier decision on grounds of an alleged material oversight and other sufficient reasons.

Alternatively, it wants fresh interim orders based on current, vehicle-specific compliance, allowing qualifying vehicles to operate while the substantive appeal is determined.

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

Its application seeks limited relief against the implementation of the Transport Licensing Appeals Board’s decision suspending its PSV licence.

Court to Consider Next Steps in November

The respondents have seven days to respond to the application, after which Nicco Movers may file any necessary further affidavits within the period directed by the court.

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

The outcome could determine whether the operator is permitted to resume limited operations under strict vehicle-specific conditions while its appeal proceeds.