Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of motion application dated May 10, 2022 (suit number not stated in the judgment)· [2022] KEELC 3163 (KLR)

Kitundu v Sheik (Environment & Land Case E327 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 3163 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
3 August 2022
5,467 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~22 min to read original · ~4 min brief

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

#
The plaintiff, who purchased a plot in Umoja Innercore in 1993, applied by notice of motion dated May 10, 2022 for orders compelling the County Government of Nairobi – Umoja Ward to reproduce the file for Nairobi/Block 83/14 and Nairobi/Block 83/14/885, and compelling the Land Registrar to produce the Green Card for Nairobi/Block 83/14/885 or certified copies. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by the plaintiff's advocate, Kenneth K Mbaabu. The defendant opposed by grounds of objection and submissions, contending the applicant had not exhausted the Access to Information Act, 2016 and that there was no evidence of requests or refusals. The court framed four issues: jurisdiction; compliance with the Access to Information Act; competence of an affidavit sworn by counsel; and compliance of annextures with rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules. It held that the application, being founded on an alleged breach of the Article 35 right of access to information, belonged before the High Court as a constitutional petition; the ELC's statutory jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) could not be expanded. The applicant had also made no written request under section 8 of the Act to the Chief Land Registrar or the County, and the departments accused were not parties and could not be condemned unheard under Article 50(1). The supporting affidavit, sworn by counsel on disputed evidentiary facts, was incompetent, and its annextures, not sealed on their face per rule 9, were expunged. The application was dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the ELC over access-to-information claims

Holding

The ELC lacks jurisdiction; the proper forum is a constitutional petition in the High Court under Article 165(3).

Reasoning

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.

p. 6
02

Compliance with the Access to Information Act, 2016

Holding

The applicant had not made a written request under section 8 to the concerned officers, so the application was premature and misconceived.

Reasoning

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.

p. 9
03

Competence of a supporting affidavit sworn by counsel on evidentiary facts

Holding

Incompetent; advocates should not swear affidavits deposing to disputed evidentiary facts.

Reasoning

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.

p. 10
04

Compliance of annextures with rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules

Holding

The annextures were not sealed on their face by the commissioner for oaths and were improper, invalid and expunged.

Reasoning

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.

p. 11
05

Fair hearing where departments accused of withholding information are not parties

Holding

The orders sought could not issue without impleading the County Government and the Chief Land Registrar.

Reasoning

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).

p. 7

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. 1.The annextures attached to the supporting affidavit are expunged and struck out from the record of the court.
  2. 2.The application dated May 10, 2022 is dismissed with costs to the defendant/respondent.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 35
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 162(2)(b)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 165(3)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 50(1)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 22, 23, 47
  • Access to Information Act, 2016Section 8
  • Environment and Land Court Act, 2011Section 13(7)
  • Land Registration Act, 2012Sections 9 and 10
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 3 rule 2(d)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 16 Rule 1
  • Oaths and Statutory Declarations RulesRule 9
  • Advocates Practice RulesRule 9

Cases cited (8)

  • Republic versus Sam Nthenya, Chief Executive Officer, Nairobi Women Hospital Ex-parte Christine N Nzula; Commission on Administration of Justice (interested party)
    (2021) eKLR
  • Katiba Institute versus President Delivery Unit & 3 others
    (2017) eKLR
  • Kenya Society for the Mentally Handicapped versus The Attorney General & others
    Petition No. 155A of 2011
  • Ottawa Football Club versus Canada (Minister of Fitness and Armature Sport)
    (1989) 2 FC 480
  • Samuel K Macharia versus Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & another
    (2012) eKLR
  • Simon Isaac Ngugi – Vs – Overseas Courier Services (K) Ltd
    (1998) eKLR
  • Kisya Investments Ltd & others vs Kenya Finance Corporation Ltd
  • Bosongo Medical Hospital & Another versus Mainstream Welfare Association and others
    [2016] eKLR
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.

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.