Turkana Indigenous People Action for Development (TIPD) v Turkana County Government & 5 others (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7179 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to force disclosure of a Turkana land lease because the applicant never first used the Access to Information Act process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicants followed the constitutional and statutory framework under Article 35 and the Access to Information Act before moving to court
- 2.Whether the applicants exhausted alternative remedies and demonstrated the nexus between the information sought and the pursuit of their constitutional rights
- 3.Whether the 6th respondent was properly joined as a party
Key legal issues
#Exhaustion of remedies under the Access to Information Act
The application failed because the applicants did not follow the statutory procedure, including invoking the Commission on Administrative Justice, before coming to court
Article 35 operationalized through the Access to Information Act requires a written request to the public entity, and on refusal an appeal to the Commission on Administrative Justice before court proceedings. The court found no evidence of serious efforts following the statutory procedure and timelines, and no demonstration of exceptional circumstances rendering the alternative forum ineffective. The court is a last resort, not the first port of call.
Nexus between information sought and constitutional rights
The applicants did not establish the nexus between the information sought and the constitutional rights they seek to protect
Citing Dande, the court noted that where information is sought from or concerning private/commercial entities, the requester must demonstrate the right to be protected and that access is required to exercise or protect that right. The particulars, dates and relevance of the information and its impact on the applicants' rights were missing from the supporting affidavits.
Joinder of the 6th respondent
The 6th respondent was improperly joined and was struck out on its preliminary objection
Under Order 1 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a proper party is one whose presence is necessary or relevant for effectual adjudication. The 6th respondent contended it was a distinct legal entity from Tullow Kenya B.V. and never party to the alleged agreements; the court allowed the preliminary objection but noted a suit is not defeated by misjoinder.
Legal principles established
#- Before a court compels disclosure under Article 35, the applicant must show the information was requested and the request denied, and must exhaust the statutory remedies under the Access to Information Act including review by the Commission on Administrative Justice
- A suit is not defeated by misjoinder; an improperly joined party may be struck out
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection by the 6th respondent is allowed and the 6th respondent is struck out of the proceedings
- 2.The application dated 24/6/2025 is dismissed with no order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; Article 35 of the Constitution and the Access to Information Act, 2016
Relief refused
#Order compelling the 1st-6th respondents to produce the lease agreement executed in favour of the 6th respondent over community land, pending the petition
Applicants failed to demonstrate they made and were denied a proper request under the Access to Information Act, failed to exhaust alternative remedies, and did not establish the nexus between the information sought and the rights pursued
Order compelling production of all documents relating to the execution of the lease agreement, including records of public participation
The particulars of the information sought, dates, demands and relevance to rights were not proved; the burden on the applicant was not discharged
Costs
Dismissed with no order as to costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The burden is on the applicant to prove the exhaustion doctrine and the nexus between the information sought and the pursuit of their constitutional rights and freedoms.
Despite the respondents raising the defence of no-exhaustion of alternative remedies, there is no evidence tendered to show any serious efiorts that were made, as outlined in the procedure and the timelines laid out under the Access to Information Act.
The upshot is I find the application lacking merit. It is dismissed with no order as to costs.
The Preliminary Objection by the 6th respondent is allowed. The 6th respondent is hereby struck out of the proceedings.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment states the 6th respondent 'denied leasing community land from the 1st respondent' in a letter 'to the Ombudsman' but attributes it to the '5th respondent' in another passage; the recipient/actor references between the 5th and 6th respondents are inconsistent
Respondents' replying affidavit is described inconsistently as sworn on 28/8/2025 and later as dated 28/8/2024
Gazette Notice number cited inconsistently as No. 2060 of 2022 and No. 2026 of 2022
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Turkana Indigenous People Action for Development (TIPD) v Turkana County Government & 5 others (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7179 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (application dated 24/6/2025 within a petition). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7179/eng@2025-10-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.