Kenya Flexogravure Ltd v Shah (Miscellaneous Civil Application E485 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 333 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court ruled that only the NTSA, not magistrates' courts, can order a forced transfer of a vehicle whose owner cannot be traced.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the court has jurisdiction to order a forced transfer of a motor vehicle under the proviso to Section 9(2) of the Traffic Act where the registered owner cannot be traced or refuses to comply
- 2.Whether an application for forced transfer may properly be brought through a miscellaneous cause where no dispute has been disclosed
Key legal issues
#Whether the court may order a forced transfer of a motor vehicle under Section 9 of the Traffic Act
The court lacks jurisdiction; the mandate rests with the NTSA unless the court has first arbitrated an ownership dispute or the sale arises from a court order such as an auction
The court read the proviso to Section 9(2) as empowering the Registrar/Authority, not the court, to register a new owner where the registered owner is dead, has left Kenya, cannot be traced, or refuses to comply. Courts arbitrate disputes, and none was disclosed; the application also came through a miscellaneous cause, which is procedurally incompetent for such relief.
Legal principles established
#- The proviso to Section 9(2) of the Traffic Act places the mandate to effect a forced transfer with the NTSA, not the courts; courts only arbitrate ownership disputes and may issue declaratory orders
Court orders
#- 1.The ex-parte application dated 05/11/2025 seeking forced transfer of motor vehicle KCF 831F is dismissed in its entirety
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 9 of the Traffic Act; Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B and 3C of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Forced transfer of motor vehicle KCF 831F from the respondent to the applicant
The proviso to Section 9(2) of the Traffic Act vests the mandate for forced transfer in the Authority (NTSA), not the court; no dispute was disclosed and a miscellaneous cause is the wrong vehicle
Costs
No costs order made
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
it does not mandate this court with the jurisdiction to issue such an order of a forced transfer. Courts of law do arbitrate on disputes and no disputes has been disclosed herein
I thus find that this application is improperly or incompetently before me and do hereby dismiss it in its entirety.
Issues in the judgment
#The respondent was never served; service was effected only on the NTSA
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Flexogravure Ltd v Shah (Miscellaneous Civil Application E485 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 333 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Miscellaneous application dated 05/11/2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/333/eng@2025-12-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.