• In her view, all matters pertaining the law in question and regulation of the industry falls within the mandate of Tea board of Kenya and therefore AFA does not have a claim in the case.
• Assets, liabilities and staff initially under AFA were also transferred to the board.
Image: FILE
An attempt by Agriculture and Food Authority (AFA) to join a case challenging sections of the Tea Act has been declined.
High Court judge Lucy Njuguna on Monday said the authority does not have any claim in the case for it to be made a party.
In her view, all matters pertaining the law in question and regulation of the industry falls within the mandate of Tea board of Kenya and therefore AFA does not have a claim in the case.
Assets, liabilities and staff initially under AFA were also transferred to the board.
The court noted that the genuine parties who are required in the case is the board and the Attorney-General as government advisor.
“As submitted by Benson Millimo, the petitioners do not have any claim against the applicant”.
Her ruling arose out of an application filed by the authority seeking to join a case filed by 50 tea factories challenging sections of Tea Act.
Following the case by the tea factories the court had suspended some sections of the Act and AFA is opposed to that.
The suspension happened after companies under Tea Act after companies under Kenya Tea Growers Association and East African Tea Trade Association challenged them arguing that they were unconstitutional.
Among the sections targeted by the EATTA is section 34(4), which it said is silent on the percentage of payments to be borne by the tea buyers and tea factories to pay the brokerage commission.
The section caps the brokerage fees but fails to indicate how the fees will be paid, according to EATTA.
The association wants the court to interpret and determine whether sections 5(l), 32(3)(b), 32(4), 34(3)(b), 34(4)(5)(6), 36(1),48 (1) and 53 of the Tea Act is constitutional.
The law, which came into effect on January 11, says all teas should be offered at the tea auction floor.
And AFA had said the suspension of some sections of the Tea Act had crippled its functions besides affecting all the stakeholders in the tea value chain.
And as a result there will be no registration of the primary producers of tea, for protection by the board, after the suspension of Section 21(2) of the Tea Act on registration of small scale and medium size tea growers, it said.
AFA also contends that the suspension of Section 22 of the Act interferes with the democratic election of the tea factory board of directors based on a system of one grower, one vote and the gender equity in constitution of board of directors.
Also challenged is the suspension of Section 25 of the Act, which AFA believes interferes with the licensing of manufacturers of tea for sale thus leaving manufacturers of tea without any oversight authority.