[2015] KEHC 7632 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 7632 (KLR)

The court found that while the petitioner had demonstrated that he sought information from the respondents and was denied, he failed to specify with precision which of his fundamental rights or freedoms were violated or threatened, and how the information sought would protect such rights. The prayers sought were vague and ambiguous, lacking specificity as to the positions or the nature of the alleged violations. The recruitment process was ongoing, and the information requested might not be fully available. The court emphasized that enforcement of Article 35 requires a clear link between the information sought and the protection of a specific right or freedom. The application did not meet...

Citation
[2015] KEHC 7632 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Benson Wachira Muthiga; Respondent: Nairobi City County Public Service Board; Respondent: Nairobi City County Government
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
11 September 2015
Case Number
Petition 74 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Conservatory Orders
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
I Lenaola
Legal Topics
Right to Access Information, Conservatory Orders, Public Service Recruitment, Leadership and Integrity, Constitutional Litigation, County Government Procedure
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Right to Access Information Conservatory Orders Public Service Recruitment Leadership and Integrity Constitutional Litigation County Government Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benson Wachira Muthiga

Applicant

Nairobi City County Public Service Board

Respondent

Nairobi City County Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Conservatory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner is entitled to conservatory orders restraining the respondents from making appointments pending supply of requested information.
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner has established a prima facie case for enforcement of the right to access information under Article 35 of the Constitution and Section 96 of the County Governments Act.
  3. 3 Whether the orders sought are sufficiently precise and justified in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the petitioner had demonstrated that he sought information from the respondents and was denied, he failed to specify with precision which of his fundamental rights or freedoms were violated or threatened, and how the information sought would protect such rights. The prayers sought were vague and ambiguous, lacking specificity as to the positions or the nature of the alleged violations. The recruitment process was ongoing, and the information requested might not be fully available. The court emphasized that enforcement of Article 35 requires a clear link between the information sought and the protection of a specific right or freedom. The application did not meet...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 27th February 2015 is dismissed.
  • Costs will abide the determination of the Petition.