Saniako N. Kibiwot v Land Control Board, Marakwet Division & 2 others [2019] KEELC 3462 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court forced the Land Registrar to hand over land documents after two years of silence, confirming you must first request information before suing for it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the petitioner's right of access to information under Article 35(1)(a) was violated
The petition is sustained only against the 3rd respondent, who violated the petitioner's right by failing to respond to a proper written request for over two years; the 1st and 2nd respondents never received a request and cannot be held liable
The court held that a violation requires proof that a request was made and refused or neglected. The letter dated 10/11/2016 from David Ingosi & Co. Advocates was a proper request under Section 8(1) of the Access to Information Act, but it was directed only to the 3rd respondent. Under Section 9, a decision was due within 21 days (extendable by 14 days); the petitioner waited over two years. The 3rd respondent therefore breached Article 35(1)(a) and Section 9 of the Act.
What orders should issue
An order of mandamus compelling the 3rd respondent to issue all the listed documents, with costs against the 3rd respondent
Having found the petition merited against the 3rd respondent alone, the court granted the principal relief sought - a mandatory order compelling disclosure of the certified copies of the statutory documents used in the subdivision of parcel No. 23 and transfer of parcel No. 55 - and awarded costs against the defaulting respondent only.
Legal principles established
#- A violation of the right of access to information can only arise where a request for information was first made to the holder and refused or ignored
- A request for information must accord with Section 8(1) of the Access to Information Act, and a public officer must decide on an application within twenty-one days
Court orders
#- 1.An order of judicial review in the nature of mandamus compelling the 3rd respondent to issue to the petitioner all the documents listed in the petition relating to the subdivision of parcel Cherangany/Kapkanyor/23 and the transfer of parcel Cherangany/Kapkanyor/55 to Kiptanui A. Kimaget
- 2.Costs of the petition borne by the 3rd respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 35 of the Constitution and the Access to Information Act (constitutional petition for enforcement of the right of access to information, with judicial review order of mandamus)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (4)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Meriapei Moonka v Chairman, Narok South Sub County Land Control Board & 3 others [2022] KEELC 381 (KLR)[2022] KEELC 381 (KLR)28 Apr 2022
- Republic (Ex Parte Wachira Mbugua & Company Limited) v Land Registrar Naivasha & 2 others[2020] KEHC 4289 (KLR)2 Jul 2020
- Law Society of Kenya v Hillary Mutyambai, Inspector General National Police Service & 4 others[2020] KEHC 6881 (KLR)16 Apr 2020
- Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v The Board, Kenya Pipeline Company Limited & 2 others ; John Ngumi (Chairman) & 10 others (Interested Parties) [2020] KEELRC 1464 (KLR)[2020] KEELRC 1464 (KLR)6 Mar 2020applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Saniako N. Kibiwot v Land Control Board, Marakwet Division & 2 others [2019] KEELC 3462 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Petition dated 13th June, 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3462/eng@2019-05-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.