Why this bus-park dispute belongs in a risk file
Not every property-risk signal is a title deed or parcel number. In Munawar Shuttle Limited v County Government of Kilifi, Al Wahim Express Shuttle Company Limited and 001 Investment, the Court of Appeal at Malindi considered a public-transport operating-rights dispute tied to a specific position at the Malindi bus park. The appeal was Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2018, arising from a High Court constitutional petition, and the judgment was delivered on 24 April 2020 by D.K. Musinga, S. Gatembu Kairu and A.K. Murgor.
The disputed place was described in the record as terminal I1200 or stall 2B at Modern Bus Park in Malindi town, also called Malindi Bus Park, Malindi New Bus Park or Malindi New Stage. Those labels matter, but they are not a cadastral identifier. This case is therefore property-adjacent: it concerns claimed exclusive use of a public bus-park terminal area, not registered land title.
The appellant claimed exclusivity, but the record had to prove it
Munawar Shuttle said the County had allocated and leased the terminal or stall to it for exclusive use. Its complaint was that the County later allowed Al Wahim Express Shuttle Company Limited and 001 Investment to use the same operating area, undermining Munawar's business. The judgment also notes a spelling variation in the body, where the second respondent appears as Al-Waheem Express Shuttle Co. Ltd.; for public identification, the caption name is the safer reference.
The immediate trigger was a County notice dated 9 March 2017. The notice reorganised Malindi-Mombasa shuttle operations, placed 11-seater shuttles under one podium on a 1:1:1 ratio, left 14-seater express matatus on their prior podium, and emphasised order, passenger respect and property protection at the bus park. Munawar challenged that directive as unconstitutional and unlawful, relying on socio-economic rights and fair-administrative-action arguments.
For due diligence, this is the crucial distinction: a directive affecting use is not the same thing as proof that one operator holds a present exclusive lease. A practical risk review would need the allocation documents, the county-management context, the competing operators' rights, and the litigation record before treating exclusivity as established.
What the Court of Appeal decided
The High Court had dismissed the constitutional petition. On appeal, Munawar argued that the County's directive displaced its leased position and violated constitutional rights. The respondents answered that the County had power over county transport, traffic and parking, that consultations had occurred, and that Munawar had not proved any exclusive entitlement to the disputed terminal position.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It accepted that the County had a transport-management mandate and found no cogent evidence that the 9 March 2017 directive violated Article 43 rights or fair administrative action. The court also agreed that stakeholder consultation had preceded the directive. The result was not an affirmative declaration for Munawar; it was a finding that Munawar had not discharged the burden needed to prove the alleged constitutional violations.
The final order was simple and important: the appeal was dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
ArdhiScore takeaway
This judgment is useful because it shows how land-risk and asset-use questions can arise without a classic parcel-title fight. A lender, adviser, operator or buyer reviewing a transport asset should not flatten terminal I1200 or stall 2B into a land parcel, nor assume a current exclusive right from a historical dispute. The safer lesson is evidential: operational rights over public facilities need source-linked proof, dated directives, and clear limits.
Source: Judiciary collection — member locator Civil - Court Appeal Decsions delivered on April 24/Mld. Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2018 - Final (1).pdf.
This article describes a historical judgment only. It does not state the current bus-park status, any later allocation, enforcement, appeal history, or present exclusive right. ArdhiScore helps organise dated, source-linked risk evidence and the professional questions that remain: https://ardhiscore.com/how-it-works.