Kitundu v Sheik (Environment & Land Case E327 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 3163 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landowner's bid to force government offices to hand over property records failed because it was filed in the wrong court without following the required information request steps.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELC over access-to-information claims
The ELC lacks jurisdiction; the proper forum is a constitutional petition in the High Court under Article 165(3).
The applicant sought to enforce the Article 35 right of access to information against state departments. Article 165(3)(b) vests jurisdiction over Bill of Rights violations in the High Court, while the ELC's mandate under Article 162(2)(b) is confined to land matters. Granting the orders would usurp jurisdiction vesting elsewhere, contrary to the Supreme Court's dictum in Samuel K Macharia v KCB.
Compliance with the Access to Information Act, 2016
The applicant had not made a written request under section 8 to the concerned officers, so the application was premature and misconceived.
Section 8 of the Act requires a written application with sufficient particulars. No evidence showed the applicant wrote to Nairobi City County or to the Chief Land Registrar, the statutory custodian of records under sections 9 and 10 of the Land Registration Act, 2012. The letter to the 'Registrar, Ministry of Lands' was unproven as dispatched, and no such office exists under the Land Registration Act.
Competence of a supporting affidavit sworn by counsel on evidentiary facts
Incompetent; advocates should not swear affidavits deposing to disputed evidentiary facts.
The affidavit deposed to facts concerning efforts to obtain documents and alleged refusals by unnamed officers - facts not primarily within the advocate's knowledge and in dispute. Such facts should be deposed to by the party. Swearing them exposes the advocate to cross-examination, creating an absurd position where one cannot be both advocate and witness, contrary to Simon Isaac Ngugi v Overseas Courier Services and the Advocates Practice Rules.
Compliance of annextures with rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules
The annextures were not sealed on their face by the commissioner for oaths and were improper, invalid and expunged.
Rule 9 requires exhibits to be securely sealed and marked with serial letters of identification. Here the serialization and sealing was done on a separate piece of paper preceding the annexture rather than on the annexture itself. Following Bosongo Medical Hospital, the exhibits were expunged, leaving the supporting affidavit bare and without evidentiary anchorage.
Fair hearing where departments accused of withholding information are not parties
The orders sought could not issue without impleading the County Government and the Chief Land Registrar.
The application sought coercive orders against the County Government of Nairobi and the Chief Land Registrar, neither of whom was a party to the suit. Condemning them unheard would violate Article 50(1) of the Constitution. The proper route, within the suit, would have been witness summons under Order 16 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, supported by a list of documents under Order 3 Rule 2(d).
Legal principles established
#- A court created by statute must confine itself to the jurisdiction conferred on it by the Constitution or statute and cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction conferred elsewhere.
- A complaint of breach of the right of access to information under Article 35 must be brought before the High Court as a constitutional petition against the department withholding the information, after compliance with the Access to Information Act, 2016.
- It is not competent for a party's advocate to depose to evidentiary facts in controversy in a supporting affidavit.
- Exhibits to affidavits must be securely sealed and marked with serial letters of identification by the commissioner for oaths, and unsealed exhibits are liable to be expunged.
- A party cannot have departments accused of withholding documents condemned without being heard; they must be impleaded.
Court orders
#- 1.The annextures attached to the supporting affidavit are expunged and struck out from the record of the court.
- 2.The application dated May 10, 2022 is dismissed with costs to the defendant/respondent.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution 2010 and section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kibui v Mwangi & 8 others (Environment and Land Case E096 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1651 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 1651 (KLR)23 Mar 2026applied
- Kariuki & 3 others (Suing as Chairman, Vice Chairlady, Secretary and Treasurer of members on their behalf and of Lake Naivasha Riparian Association) v National Land Commission & 8 others; Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Petition E9 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 5693 (KLR)[2024] KEELC 5693 (KLR)25 Jul 2024followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kitundu v Sheik (Environment & Land Case E327 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 3163 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Notice of motion application dated May 10, 2022 (suit number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3163/eng@2022-08-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.