Kinanta & 2 others v Principal Secretary Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development & 7 others (Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8623 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out an access-to-information application because the applicants targeted an office that doesn't exist and skipped the required complaint process first.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Chief Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer was properly joined as 9th Respondent
The office does not exist; the officer was wrongly joined and struck out of the proceedings
The 8th Respondent deponed that the office of Chief Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer does not legally exist and that the adjudication registers had been forwarded to the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement and onward to the Chief Land Registrar and Director of Survey. Orders against the 9th Respondent would therefore be futile, and the correct custodian was the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement.
Whether the application for access to information was merited
Not merited; the applicants bypassed the custodian and failed to exhaust the internal remedies under section 14 of the Access to Information Act before coming to court
Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Alouchier vs Senate, information must flow from the custodian through the prescribed procedure, and citizens have a duty to follow that procedure. The applicants only wrote to a non-existent office and did not lodge a review with the Commission on Administration of Justice within 30 days, nor an appeal to the High Court, as required by section 14 of the Access to Information Act.
Legal principles established
#- An application for access to information must first be made to the custodian of the information, and where rejected, the internal review mechanism under section 14 of the Access to Information Act must be exhausted before resort to court
Court orders
#- 1.The 9th Respondent is struck out of the proceedings
- 2.The application is struck out with costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; petition invoking Articles 35, 47 and 50 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kinanta & 2 others v Principal Secretary Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development & 7 others (Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8623 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8623/eng@2025-12-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.