Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as extracted· [2026] KEELC 105 (KLR)

Gituma & 10 others v Githinji & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 121 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 105 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
22 January 2026
MKMugo Kamau
767 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nyandarua on a notice of motion dated 30/7/2025 (earlier dated 15/5/2025) in a pending land suit filed in 2023. The Plaintiffs, members of Rivoi C.B.O, sought two orders: that the Director of Criminal Investigations be compelled to supply expert/forensic reports on investigations into their complaint about the sale and transfer of parcels L.R No. Nyandarua/Mawingo Salient/18/2016, 2017 and 326, on the ground that the signature of Sarah Muthoni Kimani on the sale agreement and transfer forms was forged; and that they be granted leave to file a supplementary list of documents upon receipt of the reports. The 4th Defendant's chairman, Charles Wanyoike Gatithi, opposed the application as a bad-faith fishing expedition aimed at 'panel beating' the Plaintiffs' case, noting the DCI is not a party and that pre-trial compliance with Order 11 had long been confirmed. The 1st Defendant similarly opposed it as an abuse of process. The court acknowledged the constitutional right of access to information under Article 35(1)(a) and (b), but held that the Plaintiffs had not shown the forensic report exists, that investigations had in fact been carried out, or that the DCI required a court order before release. It declined to make the orders, observed that the Plaintiffs remain free to apply for summons to have the DCI testify on the alleged forgeries, and directed that costs of the application abide the outcome of the suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court should order the DCI to release forensic investigation reports to the Plaintiffs

Holding

The court declined to make the orders sought because the existence of the reports was not demonstrated and there was no indication that investigations had even been carried out, let alone concluded.

Reasoning

The court held that although every citizen has a constitutional right of access to information held by the State under Article 35(1)(a) and (b), the Plaintiffs did not prove that the forensic report existed. The complaint letter of 21/3/2024 to the DCI showed no indication that investigations had been done, and no correspondence from the DCI indicated that a court order was a precondition to release. The court left the Plaintiffs free to seek summons for the DCI to testify on their forgery findings, with costs to abide the suit.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A litigant invoking the constitutional right of access to information held by the State must demonstrate that the information sought actually exists and is held by the State.
  • A party seeking production of investigative findings may instead apply for summons to have the investigative body appear and testify as to its findings.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 30/7/2025 (earlier dated 15/5/2025) was not granted - the court found it not appropriate to make the orders sought
  2. 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 35(1)(a) and (b)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 11
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court in a pending suit; application under a Certificate of Urgency; access to information invoked under Article 35(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of Kenya

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gituma & 10 others v Githinji & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 121 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 105 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as extracted. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/105/eng@2026-01-22

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