Chita v District Land Registrar – Kilifi & 2 others; Patel (Interested Party); Muita (Third party) (Civil Appeal E007 of 2021) [2023] KECA 1521 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed a landowner's constitutional petition because he never made a written request for the land records he wanted to inspect.
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 appellant was denied his right of access to information under Article 35 of the Constitution notwithstanding that he made no written request under section 8 of the Access to Information Act, 2016
- 2.Whether the learned judge erred in treating the Provincial Surveyor's report of 19th August 2013 as conclusively determining the boundary dispute and acreage discrepancy
- 3.Whether the appellant's request for the original adjudication records and the 1984 Registry Index Map amounted to an objection to the adjudication register under section 26 of the Land Adjudication Act
- 4.Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the appellant's private surveyor's report
- 5.Whether the learned judge's decision was against the weight of evidence
Key legal issues
#Whether the appellant's right of access to information under Article 35 was violated absent a written request
The right of access to information is protected but conditional on a written application under section 8 of the Access to Information Act; the appellant admitted making none and gave no evidence of inability to write, so the petition was properly dismissed
Section 8(1) requires a written request in English or Kiswahili with sufficient particulars. Subsection (2) caters for applicants unable to write due to illiteracy or disability, but there was no evidence the appellant was unable to make a written request; he simply did not. Since the respondents denied any request was made, the burden was on the appellant to prove he had made a formal request or was unable to do so. He failed to demonstrate taking any such action.
Whether a land boundary dispute can be litigated as a constitutional petition
No; the appellant mutated a constitutional grievance on access to information into a land dispute through amendment, and such disputes belong to ordinary civil suits
The court held that parties cannot mutate their case under the guise of amendment from a constitutional petition into an ordinary land dispute. Boundary and trespass issues do not pass constitutional muster; courts will not consider constitutional questions where a remedy is available under other legislative provisions, citing Bickle and Erad Suppliers. The court confined itself to the access-to-information issue that was properly before the trial court.
The duty of this Court on a first appeal
The Court reconsiders and evaluates the evidence and draws its own conclusions, but will only depart from the trial court's factual findings where they were not based on the record, were based on wrong principles, or where discretion was exercised injudiciously
Citing Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co, Jabane v Olenja and Mbogo v Shah, the court restated the settled framework for first appeals. Applying it, the court found the trial judge's dismissal of the petition on the access-to-information issue was correct, and regarded the other issues dealt with by the learned trial judge as extraneous to the germane issue before him.
Legal principles established
#- A boundary dispute or trespass to land is not a matter suitable for litigation as a constitutional petition; constitutional jurisdiction should not be invoked where an ordinary remedy exists
- An application to access information under the Access to Information Act, 2016 must be made in writing in English or Kiswahili with sufficient particulars; physical visits to an office do not satisfy this requirement, and without proof of a proper request a petition is premature
- A statutory provision prescribing the manner of approaching an institution is not a mere technicality but an enabling provision
- The concept of 'interested parties' or 'third parties' has no place in the Court of Appeal Rules; before this Court parties are only appellants and respondents (or applicants and respondents)
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.The appellant shall pay the costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya (Malindi)
- Not stated in the judgment text provided (amended petition dated 20th November 2015)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction (specific constitutional/statutory provision not stated in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the High Court judgment and allowing the petition as prayed (or remitting it for fresh hearing before a judge other than Olola, J.)
The appellant never made a written request for the information as required by section 8 of the Access to Information Act, and the petition was prematurely brought; the other issues dealt with by the trial judge were extraneous
Costs
The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents and interested parties ('we find no merit in this appeal which we hereby dismiss with costs')
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.
An issue revolving around boundary dispute or trespass to land does not, in our view, pass the constitutional muster in order to be litigated as constitutional petition.
It is our considered view, without proof that the information was properly requested, the petition was prematurely brought.
A provision of law that prescribes the manner in which to approach certain institutions cannot, in our view, be termed as mere technicality as submitted by the appellant.
In the premises, we find no merit in this appeal which we hereby dismiss with costs. Orders accordingly.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment internally refers inconsistently to the subordinate suit, calling it Kaloleni SRM's Civil Suit No 271 of 2011 in places and Mariakani SRMCC No 271 of 2011 elsewhere
The appellant's submissions are recorded as referring to the Provincial Surveyor's report 'dated 19th August 2023' although the report is elsewhere dated 19th August 2013
The interested party's replying affidavit is stated to have been filed on 8th August 2012 although the amended petition is dated 20th November 2015
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chita v District Land Registrar – Kilifi & 2 others; Patel (Interested Party); Muita (Third party) (Civil Appeal E007 of 2021) [2023] KECA 1521 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2023/1521/eng@2023-12-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.