Kariuki (Suing as a Member of and in the Interest of a Group of Persons going by the Name Eintreten Association) v National Land Commission & 2 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7484 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that information about public land grants must be disclosed to citizens, awarding Sh1 million in damages.
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 respondents violated the Petitioners' right to access information as envisaged under article 35 of the Constitution
- 2.Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the respondents violated the Petitioners' right of access to information under article 35
Yes. The 1st and 3rd respondents failed to respond to or supply the requested information on public land grants and did not justify the refusal under section 6 of the Access to Information Act; the publicness of public land processes defeats the privacy objection.
The Court traced article 35 and the Access to Information Act, noting disclosure is the rule and exemption the exception. The burden of justifying refusal lies on the State under section 6. The information sought concerned public land grants, an inherently public process, and the respondents gave no proper justification for denial, so the right was violated.
Whether section 6(1)(d) of the Access to Information Act (privacy exemption) justified the non-disclosure
No. The privacy exemption did not apply to information on public land grants and dispositions; public land belongs to the public and every stage of its allotment is public.
The respondents argued that names and addresses of proprietors are private and exempt under section 6(1)(d) and article 31. The Court held that since the land in question is public, everything about the grant process is public and must remain public, involving the public; the State bore the evidentiary burden and failed to discharge it.
Whether the 2nd respondent's decision dated 30 October 2023 ought to be quashed and whether it infringed the right to fair administrative action
Yes. The Commission on Administrative Justice's decision was quashed and it was found to have infringed article 47 by affirming the refusal and advising the Petitioners to seek a court order.
The 2nd respondent had supported the 1st and 3rd respondents' adamant refusal and failed to appreciate the constitutional and statutory framework on access to information and public land. The Court held the decision unsustainable and issued certiorari against it, also declaring a violation of fair administrative action.
Legal principles established
#- Information concerning grants and dispositions of public land is public and must remain public; the process of allotment of public land must be a public process
- The burden of justifying refusal of access to information rests on the State or party refusing access
- Where a transition of public functions occurs, no vacuum arises; the successor institution must collaborate with relevant government agencies to retrieve and supply records
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that section 6(1)(d) of the Access to Information Act does not limit the requirement on public entities to grant access to information to citizens of Kenya
- 2.An order of judicial review in the nature of certiorari removing into the Court and quashing the decision of the Commission on Administrative Justice dated October 30, 2023
- 3.A declaration that the groups of the Petitioners are each entitled to access to the information they sought on July 27, 2023 from the 1st respondent as of right
- 4.A declaration that the right to access to information under article 35(1)(a) has been violated by the respondents
- 5.A declaration that the right to fair administrative action under article 47 has been infringed by the 2nd respondent
- 6.A declaration that the right of the group of the Petitioner has been violated by the 1st and 3rd respondents
- 7.A mandatory injunction compelling the 1st respondent to forthwith grant the group of the Petitioner access to the information sought on 27th July 2023, at the respondents' cost
- 8.General damages together with exemplary damages of KES 1,000,000 to be borne by the respondents jointly and severally
- 9.Costs of the Petition awarded to the group of Petitioners
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 35, 47 and 23 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (enforcement of Bill of Rights including judicial review remedies)
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.
What the Petitioners are seeking is information on public land grants. That to me means that the land is public and so if anyone get to be allotted the land that information must be public everything about the process is public and must remain public the process leading to the allotment must be a public process involving the public because the land belongs to the public.
the Petitioner needed not to have justified the request since the State is under duty to provide the information on request by a Citizen unless the State can validly justify its refusal to supply the information under section 6 of the Act.
the NLC should have acknowledged the letter written by the Petitioner and collaborated with Ministry and the relevant government agencies to retrieve the data that was being sought by the Petitioners.
I award to the group of Petitioner general damages together with exemplary damages of Kesh 1,000,000 to be borne by the respondents jointly and severally.
I do hereby issue a Mandatory Injunction to compel the 1st respondent to forthwith grant the group of the Petitioner herein access to the information that they sought on 27th July 2023, at the respondents' cost.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment inconsistently identifies the respondents: the 3rd respondent is described as the statutory information officer of the 1st respondent, yet the Petitioner's submissions state it was 'the 2nd respondent as the statutory information officer designate of the 1st respondent'
Judgment refers to the Commission on Administrative Justice as the body with oversight of access to information complaints, but paragraph 11 attributes to the '2nd respondent' functions under section 5(2)(d) of the National Land Commission Act which belong to the National Land Commission
Date discrepancy: a further affidavit is dated March 27, 2023 yet it supports a Petition dated April 15, 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kariuki (Suing as a Member of and in the Interest of a Group of Persons going by the Name Eintreten Association) v National Land Commission & 2 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7484 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 15/04/2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7484/eng@2025-11-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.