Christopher Matata Lati v Land Registrar Makueni & 2 others [2020] KEELC 937 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered government land offices to hand over title documents, ruling that endless 'ongoing verification' is no excuse for hiding records from citizens.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondents violated the Petitioner's right of access to information under Article 35
Yes, the Respondents violated the Petitioner's right of access to information under Article 35; the exemptions in section 6 of the Access to Information Act were not established.
The Respondents did not deny that the information was withheld. Their justification was the ongoing verification process, but they placed no material before the court beyond that assertion, and a process running since 2006 cannot go on indefinitely at the expense of information seekers. The 'due process of law' exemption fails because the withholding itself impedes the Petitioner's pursuit of his proprietary rights, and the safety/health/life exemption is implausible for ownership information routinely released by land registries.
Whether the Respondents should be compelled to release the information
Yes; the court issued a permanent mandatory injunction compelling release of the specific documents listed in the petition, coupled with a declaration of unconstitutionality.
The information is in the possession and custody of the Respondents, who themselves released part of it (extract LK-1) without prejudice. The Petitioner demonstrated a prima facie proprietary interest, needs the information to decide whom to sue and on what cause of action, and his right of access to justice under Article 48 protects this. Further withholding would be an impediment to that right.
Legal principles established
#- A state body asserting an exemption to the right of access to information must place material before the court to justify it; a never-ending verification process cannot justify indefinite withholding of information.
- Continued withholding of information a citizen needs to enforce proprietary rights impedes due process of law and access to justice rather than qualifying for exemption.
- Information on ownership of property does not endanger safety, health or life of persons and is not exempt under section 6(1)(c) of the Access to Information Act.
Court orders
#- 1.A permanent mandatory injunction compelling the Respondents to release forthwith all information in their power, possession and/or custody vital to enforcing the Petitioner's rights, specifically the letter of offer, letter of acceptance, receipt issued by Settlement Fund Trustees, discharge of charge, transfer, title deed (if any) and search certificates (where applicable) in respect of each of parcels Makueni/Nguu Ranch/27, 33, 80, 84, 88, 89, 90, 98, 31, 82, 97 and 278
- 2.A declaration that the Respondents' failure to release the information was unconstitutional and a violation of the Petitioner's constitutional rights
- 3.Costs to the Petitioner
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 35, 47, 48, 60 and 64 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (as indicated in the heading of the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Christopher Matata Lati v Land Registrar Makueni & 2 others [2020] KEELC 937 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Constitutional Petition (Makueni), amended petition dated 28th November 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/937/eng@2020-10-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.