Commission for Human Rights and Justice v Kenya Fishing Industries Corporation; Nyaberi & another (Interested Parties) (Petition 013 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 377 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that a state corporation broke the law by ignoring an information request, though the acting CEO's personal salary details stay private.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent's non-response to the information request violated Articles 35 and 47 of the Constitution
Yes - the failure to provide the information despite the petitioner's request violated the petitioner's rights under Articles 35 and 47.
The respondent, a state corporation, attended but filed no response or submissions. The court relied on Nairobi Law Monthly and Trusted Society for the maximum-disclosure principle that the State bears the burden of justifying denial, and on JSC v Mbalu Mutava linking Article 35 to Article 47 fair administrative action. Having never offered reasons or disclosure, the respondent was in breach.
Whether any of the requested information was exempt from disclosure
Yes, in part - items (b), (d), (e) and (h) were withheld as personal information and data of the 1st interested party; the rest was to be disclosed.
The petitioner had itself conceded that the right must be interpreted to protect overriding public and private interests including privacy. The court accepted that the employment-related personal financial and appraisal records of the 1st interested party constituted personal data deserving protection, and carved those items out of the otherwise justified disclosure.
The legality of the 1st interested party holding the CEO position in an acting capacity for over 6 months
An acting appointment is statutorily capped at six months, and the Public Service Commission is mandated to take corrective action where an acting appointment contravenes the section.
The court reproduced the acting-appointment provisions (referred to by the petitioner as Section 34(3) of the Public Service Act and quoted by the court as Section 43 of the Public Service Commission Act) capping acting appointments at thirty days to six months. As a state corporation, the respondent is bound. Enforcement of that regime lies with the 2nd interested party under Article 234, following COFEK v NSSF.
Whether the expiry of the board chairperson's term excused non-disclosure
No - the petitioner argued, and the court accepted, that the right to access information is not conditional on the presence of such office.
The petitioner submitted that the respondent's board chairperson, to whom the request had been addressed, no longer held office. Relying on the principle that the Article 35 right is not conditional on the existence of a particular office-holder, the court treated this as insufficient reason for the respondent to withhold the information. The respondent put in no contrary material.
Legal principles established
#- Information held by the State is accessible to citizens and should be available on request; access to information is a foundational right enabling participation in governance.
- Under Articles 35 and 47 of the Constitution a public body is obliged to allow access to information sought and, where it cannot, to give reasons for the refusal.
- An officer appointed in an acting capacity in a state corporation can only hold the acting role for not more than 6 months.
- The right to access information implicates the right to fair administrative action under Article 47.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the failure by the respondents to provide the information sought under article 35(1) based on the petitioner's request made on 27/8/2024 vide a letter dated 24/5/2024 is a violation of the petitioner's right to access information
- 2.An Order of Mandamus directing the Respondent to disclose to the Petitioner information sought through its requests made on 27 August 2024 and 24 May 2024 save for items (b), (d), (e), and (h) of the letter dated 24 May 2024
- 3.The 2nd interested party has a mandate to attend, address, and undertake corrective action within the respondent's entity as appropriate
- 4.The respondent is to meet costs due to the petition in these proceedings
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 35 and 47 of the Constitution (petition filed under Article 22)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Commission for Human Rights and Justice v Kenya Fishing Industries Corporation; Nyaberi & another (Interested Parties) (Petition 013 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 377 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition No 013 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/377/eng@2025-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.