Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in the extract of the judgment provided· [2023] KEELRC 560 (KLR)

Uzalendo Institute of Leadership & Democracy v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of ICT, Innovation and Youth Affairs & 2 others; Kamanguya & another (Interested Parties); Government Printers (Proposed Interested Party) (Petition E155 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 560 (KLR)

Not stated in the judgment extract (delivered virtually at Nairobi)
23 February 2023
OKOcharo Kebira
1,485 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court compelled the Government Printer to produce a disputed Gazette Notice and its receiving register, confirming that custodians of public records must answer to courts.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by Ocharo Kebira J, delivered virtually at Nairobi on February 23, 2023, determines a Notice of Motion dated October 25, 2022 filed by the Petitioner/Applicant in a pending petition. The application sought the enjoinder of the Kenya Gazette/Government Printers as a 3rd Interested Party and orders compelling it to furnish a certified copy of Gazette Notice Number 9536 Vol CXXIV No 154 dated August 8, 2022, together with a certified extract of the receiving register for gazette notices for August 2022. The authenticity of the Gazette Notice was central to a contempt application in the petition: the Petitioner alleged the notice was not physically available at the Government Printer nor traceable online at the time of filing the petition, and that it was backdated and a product of forgery, fraud and deceit. Requests under Article 35 of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Access to Information Act, including one routed through the Commission on Administrative Justice, went unanswered. Counsel for the Petitioner framed two issues: entitlement to the prayers and the interests of justice, relying on authorities on disclosure of vital documents and access to information. The Respondents filed no response, leaving the supporting affidavit uncontested. The court, invoking the overriding objective and the principle that technicalities should not shackle the dispensation of justice, held that the circumstances of the Gazette Notice are critical to a fair determination and are best explained by its publisher and custodian. The application was allowed with costs to the Applicant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Entitlement to orders compelling production of the Gazette Notice and receiving register

Holding

The application was allowed; the Gazette Notice and its circumstances are critical to a fair determination and the Government Printer, as custodian, is best placed to explain them.

Reasoning

The court held that justice between the parties required full understanding of the circumstances of the Gazette Notice. The entity charged with publishing and custodianship of Gazette Notices and registers is best placed to explain those circumstances. The Respondents filed no response, leaving the supporting affidavit uncontested, and the court invoked the overriding objective to eschew technicalities.

p. 4
02

Effect of the Respondents' failure to respond

Holding

The averments in the supporting affidavit remained uncontested.

Reasoning

The Respondents opted not to file any response to the application. The court treated the supporting affidavit's averments as uncontested, which supported the finding that the application had merit.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A party is entitled to an order for production of documents vital to a just determination of a matter, including documents held by an opposing party or a public custodian.
  • Courts will not be shackled by technicalities; the overriding objective empowers the court to grant relief where the ends of justice and equity so demand.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Petitioner's Notice of Motion application dated October 25, 2022 is allowed
  2. 2.The application is allowed with costs to the Applicant/Petitioner
  3. 3.The Kenya Gazette/Government Printers is enjoined as 3rd Interested Party and to furnish the certified copy of Gazette Notice Number 9536 Vol CXXIV No 154 and certified copy of the extract of the receiving register for gazette notices for August 2022 (prayers allowed as applied for)

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 35
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 33(1)(a)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 232(1)(f)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 10
  • Constitution of KenyaChapter 6
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Access to Information ActSection 4
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B

Cases cited (4)

  • Peter Mule Muthungu V Kenya National Hospital
    (2013) eKLR
  • Nelson O Kadison V Advocates Complaints Commission & another
    (2013) eKLR
  • David Bundi V Timothy Mwenda Muthee
    (2022) eKLR
  • Wachira Karani V Bildad Wachira
    (2016) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original constitutional petition jurisdiction (petitions invoking Article 35 of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Access to Information Act); no specific invoking provision stated in the judgment extract

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Uzalendo Institute of Leadership & Democracy v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of ICT, Innovation and Youth Affairs & 2 others; Kamanguya & another (Interested Parties); Government Printers (Proposed Interested Party) (Petition E155 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 560 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the extract of the judgment provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/560/eng@2023-02-23

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