Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in extract (constitutional petition, Narok ELC)· [2022] KEELC 381 (KLR)

Meriapei Moonka v Chairman, Narok South Sub County Land Control Board & 3 others [2022] KEELC 381 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
28 April 2022
CMC.G. Mbogo
1,175 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Narok ordered a Land Control Board to hand over its meeting minutes, confirming citizens can enforce their constitutional right to information.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioner, Meriapei Moonka, formerly the absolute sole registered proprietor of parcel Cis Mara/Olkinyei/293 in Narok West Sub-county, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 1st October 2021 seeking an order compelling the 1st to 3rd respondents to issue him with certified copies of the Narok South District Land Control Board minutes of the meeting held on 25th July 2013, pending hearing of his constitutional petition. He needed the minutes to defend Narok ELC No. 40 of 2020 (Oltetia Lemein v Meriapei Moonka). He deposed that despite repeated written requests (letters dated 23rd April, 26th May, 16th April and 21st September 2021), the respondents variously redirected him to a former secretary, disclaimed jurisdiction, or simply never responded. The 1st, 2nd and 4th respondents opposed through grounds of opposition terming the application frivolous. The application was canvassed by written submissions; counsel relied on the Omtatah and Kibiwot authorities on the demand-and-refusal precondition to access-to-information claims. The court found the petitioner had repeatedly sought the minutes, that no justification existed for withholding them, and that access to such information is guaranteed by Article 35(1) of the Constitution. The application was allowed: the respondents were ordered jointly and/or severally to issue certified copies of the minutes pending hearing of the petition, with costs of the application provided for. Judgment delivered via email on 28th April 2022 by Mbogo C.G, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the petitioner was entitled to an order compelling the respondents to supply certified copies of the Land Control Board minutes under Article 35(1) of the Constitution.

Holding

The application had merits; the respondents were ordered jointly and/or severally to issue certified copies of the minutes pending hearing of the petition.

Reasoning

The court found that the petitioner had, on several occasions, requested the minutes from the respondents, who gave no justification for withholding them. Access to information is guaranteed under Article 35(1), and the respondents' failure to supply the minutes breached that right and the petitioner's legitimate expectation, making the application merited despite the grounds of opposition terming it frivolous.

p. 2
02

Whether the application was premature or frivolous because recourse was not first sought through other channels.

Holding

The respondents could not term the application frivolous; the demand-and-refusal precondition relied on by the respondents was satisfied by the petitioner's repeated letters.

Reasoning

Counsel relied on the Omtatah and Kibiwot authorities establishing that court is not the first port of call and that a violation of the right of access to information occurs only where a request has been made and refused or neglected. The court applied these principles, finding that the petitioner's letters of 23rd April, 26th May, 16th April and 21st September 2021 constituted proper requests that were disregarded.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an applicant demonstrates repeated requests to a State organ for information, refusal without justification violates Article 35(1) of the Constitution and justifies an order compelling disclosure.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order against the 1st to 3rd respondents jointly and/or severally requiring them to issue the petitioner with certified copies of Narok South District Land Control Board minutes of the meeting held on 25th July, 2013, pending the hearing and determination of the petition.
  2. 2.Costs of the application provided for.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 1, 2, 3, 10, 19, 20, 21, 22(1), 23(1),(3), 25, 27(1) and (2), 28, 29(d) and (f), 35(1), 40(1),(2) and (3), 47, 48, 159, 258, 259
  • Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013Rules 3, 4, 23, 24
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Access to Information ActSection 8(1) (as cited within the quoted authority)

Cases cited (2)

  • Andrew Omtatah Okoth versus Attorney General & 2 others
    (2011) eKLR
  • Saniako N. Kibiwot versus Land Control Board, Marakwet Division & 2 others
    (2019) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 22, 23, 258 and 259 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, and Rules 3, 4, 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Meriapei Moonka v Chairman, Narok South Sub County Land Control Board & 3 others [2022] KEELC 381 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in extract (constitutional petition, Narok ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/381/eng@2022-04-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.