A distilling company has moved to court seeking orders to quash a decision of the Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS) to suspend its standardisation permit.
Patiala Distillers Limited who on Wednesday filed a petition before the High Court Judicial Review division also want the court to restrain the respondents from engaging in any matter of disruption of the operations of the standardisation mark permits.
This is under the guise of enforcing the suspension.
KEBS, the Inspector General of Police, the Commissioner General of the Kenya Revenue Authority, NACADA CEO, CEO Anti-Counterfeit Authority, the Council of Governor - Alcohol Control Boards and the Attorney General are listed as respondents.
The distiller also prayed for orders suspending the decision of the KEBS.
In an affidavit, Mary Muthoni, the manufacturer said she received a letter from KEBS dated February 27, communicating the immediate suspension of the standardised mark permit for three of her products.
She told the court the same was done in malice, bad faith and lawlessness saying she never received any show cause letters or summons from any investigative agencies on allegations of violations of the Standards Act or any other related act.
She alleged that the move by the Bureau was meant to frustrate and obstruct her operations maintaining that hers is a genuine business.
Calling upon the court to issue the sought orders, Muthoni said the failure would occasion her irreparable harm and loss.
She stated that if issued, the orders would not prejudice the respondents.
The petition alleges a breach of the constitution, illegality for being ultra vires (acting beyond one's legal power or authority), irrationality and unreasonableness.
Patiala's lawyer Danstan Omari stated that it was unreasonable that the suspension notice was effective immediately and did not consider the plight of Kenyans who rely on the company to sustain themselves and their families.
"It loses sense and rationality when such an action is done haphazardly without following the process enacted by the law. Nothing presented the 1st respondent (KEBS) to summon not warn the applicant of any suspected violations of laid down regulations," he argued.
"The law is a shield to the applicant and when the same law is broken by the government agencies, it raises many unanswered issues with how the law should be enforced."
