Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedPetition dated 15/04/2024· [2025] KEELC 7484 (KLR)

Kariuki (Suing as a Member of and in the Interest of a Group of Persons going by the Name Eintreten Association) v National Land Commission & 2 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7484 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
3 November 2025
10,466 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~42 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that information about public land grants must be disclosed to citizens, awarding Sh1 million in damages.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This petition by the Authority of Members of Eintreten Association sought access to information held by the National Land Commission concerning grants and dispositions of public land in Kiambu County. The Petitioners' request dated 27 July 2023 went unanswered by the 1st and 3rd respondents; a review by the 2nd respondent, the Commission on Administrative Justice, concluded on 30 October 2023 that the information would invade the privacy of registered proprietors and advised the Petitioners to obtain a court order. The Court framed two issues: whether the right of access to information under article 35 was violated, and whether the Petitioners were entitled to the reliefs sought. Applying the Access to Information Act and domestic, regional and comparative authority, the Court held that the State bears the burden of justifying refusal under section 6 of the Act. Because the information concerned public land, whose allotment process is inherently public, the privacy exemption under section 6(1)(d) did not avail the respondents. The Court also held that the NLC should have collaborated with the Ministry and relevant agencies to retrieve records despite the transition from the old constitutional order. The petition was allowed in full: the CAJ's decision was quashed by certiorari; declarations issued that articles 35 and 47 rights were violated; a mandatory injunction compelling disclosure was granted; and general and exemplary damages of KES 1,000,000 were awarded against the respondents jointly and severally, with costs to the Petitioners.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the respondents violated the Petitioners' right of access to information under article 35

Holding

Yes. The 1st and 3rd respondents failed to respond to or supply the requested information on public land grants and did not justify the refusal under section 6 of the Access to Information Act; the publicness of public land processes defeats the privacy objection.

Reasoning

The Court traced article 35 and the Access to Information Act, noting disclosure is the rule and exemption the exception. The burden of justifying refusal lies on the State under section 6. The information sought concerned public land grants, an inherently public process, and the respondents gave no proper justification for denial, so the right was violated.

p. 24
02

Whether section 6(1)(d) of the Access to Information Act (privacy exemption) justified the non-disclosure

Holding

No. The privacy exemption did not apply to information on public land grants and dispositions; public land belongs to the public and every stage of its allotment is public.

Reasoning

The respondents argued that names and addresses of proprietors are private and exempt under section 6(1)(d) and article 31. The Court held that since the land in question is public, everything about the grant process is public and must remain public, involving the public; the State bore the evidentiary burden and failed to discharge it.

p. 23
03

Whether the 2nd respondent's decision dated 30 October 2023 ought to be quashed and whether it infringed the right to fair administrative action

Holding

Yes. The Commission on Administrative Justice's decision was quashed and it was found to have infringed article 47 by affirming the refusal and advising the Petitioners to seek a court order.

Reasoning

The 2nd respondent had supported the 1st and 3rd respondents' adamant refusal and failed to appreciate the constitutional and statutory framework on access to information and public land. The Court held the decision unsustainable and issued certiorari against it, also declaring a violation of fair administrative action.

p. 24

Legal principles established

#
  • Information concerning grants and dispositions of public land is public and must remain public; the process of allotment of public land must be a public process
  • The burden of justifying refusal of access to information rests on the State or party refusing access
  • Where a transition of public functions occurs, no vacuum arises; the successor institution must collaborate with relevant government agencies to retrieve and supply records

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that section 6(1)(d) of the Access to Information Act does not limit the requirement on public entities to grant access to information to citizens of Kenya
  2. 2.An order of judicial review in the nature of certiorari removing into the Court and quashing the decision of the Commission on Administrative Justice dated October 30, 2023
  3. 3.A declaration that the groups of the Petitioners are each entitled to access to the information they sought on July 27, 2023 from the 1st respondent as of right
  4. 4.A declaration that the right to access to information under article 35(1)(a) has been violated by the respondents
  5. 5.A declaration that the right to fair administrative action under article 47 has been infringed by the 2nd respondent
  6. 6.A declaration that the right of the group of the Petitioner has been violated by the 1st and 3rd respondents
  7. 7.A mandatory injunction compelling the 1st respondent to forthwith grant the group of the Petitioner access to the information sought on 27th July 2023, at the respondents' cost
  8. 8.General damages together with exemplary damages of KES 1,000,000 to be borne by the respondents jointly and severally
  9. 9.Costs of the Petition awarded to the group of Petitioners
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 35, 47 and 23 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (enforcement of Bill of Rights including judicial review remedies)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kariuki (Suing as a Member of and in the Interest of a Group of Persons going by the Name Eintreten Association) v National Land Commission & 2 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7484 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 15/04/2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7484/eng@2025-11-03

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