https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3549

Lepakkiras & 7 others v Sereolopi Community Land Management Committee (CMLC) & 7 others (Environment and Land Petition E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3549 (KLR) (8 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3549 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Isiolo Environment and Land Petition E005 of 2025 JO Mboya, J June 8, 2026 Between George Lepakkiras 1st Petitioner Alex Leniapa 2nd Petitioner Josephat Leano 3rd Petitioner Jiniwe Leakono 4th Petitioner Leriyaso Leakono 5th Petitioner Lorwasno Lolmanogoi 6th Petitioner Lepakinipas Pat Simon 7th Petitioner Legal Advice Center 8th Petitioner and The Sereolopi Community Land Management Committee (CMLC) 1st Respondent Chairperson, Sera Wildlife Conservancy 2nd Respondent Great Plains Sera Limited 3rd Respondent Northern Rangeland Trust 4th Respondent The Land Registrarnyahururu 5th Respondent Samburu County Government 6th Respondent National Land Commission 7th Respondent The Hon Attorney General 8th Respondent Ruling 1.Before me is the Notice of Motion Application dated the 30.10.2025; brought pursuant to the provisions of Article 2, 3, 10, 11, 21 , 22, 23, 40, 42, 43, 47, 56, 60, 63, 69 and 159 of the Constitution, 2010; Rule 4 of the Mutunga Rules; and Sections 6 and 16 of the Community Land Act, 2016; and wherein the Petitioners/Applicants[hereinafter referred to as the Applicants] have sought a plethora of reliefs. 2.The reliefs sought vide the application are:i.That this application and the annexed petition herein be certified as Extremely urgent, service of the same be dispensed with in the first instance and the same be heard on priority basis.ii.That pending the hearing and determination of this petition, this honorable court be pleased to issue an interim injunction order restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, whether by themselves, their agents, servants, representatives, or any other person acting under their authority, from signing, executing, or formalizing any lease agreement over the community land in Sereolipi, including but not limited to the areas as the Lodge Area, Privacy Area, and Conservation Area.iii.That pending the hearing and determination of this petition, this honorable court be pleased to issue an interim injunction order prohibiting the 2nd and 3rd Respondents form advertising, recruiting, hiring, employing or deploying any rangers, drivers, guides, or staff in connection with the impugned lease or any other conservancy project on the said land without informed participation and consent of the community.iv.That pending the hearing and determination of this petition this Honourable court be pleased to issue an interim order compelling the 6th respondent, as the designated trustee of the registered community land under Article 63[3] of the Constitution and section 6 of the Community Land Act, to immediately safeguard the Sereolipi Community Land in question and revoke any approval, consent, license, lease or facilitation issued to the 1st and 2nd respondents in connection with the disputed lease or conservancy.v.That pending the hearing and determination of this petition, this honorable court be pleased to issue a prohibitory order restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents from intimidating, harassing, threatening, bribing or in any manner interfering with the any community members, elders, leaders, youth or civil society representatives who oppose the lease, the conservancy project, or the process by which the lease was obtained.vi.That pending the hearing and determination of this petition, this honorable court be pleased to issue an order of compelling the 5th respondent, the Land Registrar Nyahururu , to disclose and furnish the petitioners with certified copies of the title deed for the Sereolipi community land, together with all registers, entries , adjudication records, survey plans, and subdivision maps relating thereto, including any documents connected to the proposed lease or intended alienation of the said land.vii.That pending the hearing and determination of this petition, this honorable court be pleased to issue an order for prohibiting any form of construction, fencing, establishment of infrastructure of entry into the disputed land by the 3rd Respondent or any contractors, licensees, or investors linked to the disputed lease pending the hearing and determination of this petition.viii.That pending the hearing and determination of this petition, this honorable court be pleased to issue an interim order compelling the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents, to disclose and furnish the petitioners with certified copies of all books of accounts, financial statements, payments records and related documents regarding any existing leased or prior leasing arrangements involving the Sereolipi community land entered into between the said respondents or any on behalf of the community.ix.That pending the hearing and determination of this petition, this honorable court be pleased to refer the dispute to court supervised mediation pursuant to Article 159 [2] [c] of the Constitution, Section 20 of the Environment and Land Court Act, and Rules 19 and 20 of the Environment and Land Court [mediation] Rules, 2021, to facilitate an amicable, transparent, and participatory resolution of the issues in disputes.x.That pending the hearing and determination of this application, the County Commissioner of Samburu and Samburu County Commander to oversee the implementation of the orders sought herein and to ensure that peace and order prevails.xi.That the costs of this application be provided for. 3.The Application is premised on various grounds which have been enumerated in the body thereof. The grounds are: the Applicants are members of Sereolipi community; the community comprises of indigenous pastoralists; the community depend on the communal land for purposes of grazing , food security, cultural practices and livelihood; the 1st and 2nd respondents are in the process of alienating a substantial chunk of the community land to the 3rd respondent; the intended lease in favour of the 3rd Respondent has not been approved by the community; the 1st Respondent did not undertaken adequate public participation and the intended lease shall deprive the community of their rights to use the suit land. 4.Additionally, the Applicants have posited thus: The intended lease by and in favour of the 3rd Respondent is bound to violate their constitutional rights. The community shall be subjected to economic deprivation; the community shall be subjected to food insecurity; and the community shall be forcibly evicted/displaced from their communal land. 5.Furthermore, it has been posited that the 1st and 2nd Respondents procured consent of some members of the community, albeit without full disclosure of the benefits [if any] of the intended project; and without highlighting the economic and legal implications of the intended lease in favour of the 3rd respondent. 6.Other than the foregoing, it has also been contended that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents have neither availed nor supplied the requisite documents to enable the petitioners to appreciate/apprehend the benefits that are bound to arise from or accrue to the community. To this end, it has been averred that the intended alienation of the community land is being undertaken in violation of various provisions of the constitution, inter alia, Articles 10, 35, 40 and 69 of the Constitution, 2010. 7.The subject Application is supported by two [2] affidavits. The first affidavit is the supporting affidavit sworn by George Leparkiras and which affidavit is sworn on the 30.10.2025. The said affidavit contains various annextures. Moreover, the deponent of the supporting affidavit has reiterated and re-affirmed the grounds highlighted at the foot of the application. 8.The Second affidavit is the supplementary/ Further affidavit sworn by the same deponent. The further affidavit is sworn on the 06.02.2026 and wherein the deponent has raised various issues. The issues include: The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents have withheld information pertaining to the intended lease from the community; the intended lease is being undertaken without due transparency; the lease has not been approved by the community; the land being alienated comprise of the community grazing land; the community has not been appraised of the benefits [if any] of the intended lease; and the chairperson of the 1st Respondent is abusing his office; and the court is seized of the jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought. 9.The 1st and 2nd Respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn by one Joseph Lentaka. The deponent of the replying affidavit has highlighted various issues. The issues are : the 1st Respondent is duly authorized to manage the community land on behalf of the community; the 1st Respondent duly engaged the community; the community was duly appraised of the benefits attendant to the project; the intended project shall not affect/interfere with the community grazing land; the land being leased to the 3rd Respondent comprise of the portion which was reserved for wildlife conservation; the entire community is bound to benefit; the petitioners herein have not established a basis for the grant of the orders sought. 10.The 3rd Respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn by David Stogdale. The replying affidavit was sworn on the 06.02.2026. The deponent of the replying affidavit has made various assertions. The assertions include: The 3rd Respondent is not chargeable with the mandate to manage the community land; the 3rd Respondent was not the one mandated to engage the community in decision making; the obligation of engaging the community belonged to the 1st respondent; and in any event, the community was duly consulted and involved in the process leading to the intended lease. 11.In addition, the deponent of the replying affidavit has averred that the community held various meetings and engagements leading to agreements to lease. To this end, the deponent has highlighted the details of the meeting that was held and the minutes arising therefrom at the foot of paragraph 19 of the replying affidavit. 12.The 5th and 8th respondents opposed the application vide the replying affidavit Stephen Waithaka Githinji. The replying affidavit is sworn on the 06.02.2026. The deponent of the replying affidavit has averred thus: the community land in question [Sereolipi Community Land] is duly registered; the community was issued with a certificate of title; the management of the community land falls within the mandate of the 1st Respondent; the 5th and 8th Respondents have no role to play in the management of the community land; and the 5th and 8th Respondents have been wrongly joined in the subject petition. 13.Furthermore, the deponent of the replying affidavit had averred thus: the information pertaining to the registration of the community land is available with the community land registrar; the petitioners are at liberty to procure and obtain the information; the information can be obtained upon making a written application; the petitioners have neither applied for nor sought the information from the community land registrar; and the petition together with the application are premature; misconceived; and legally untenable. 14.The 4th Respondent filed grounds of opposition dated the 26.11.2025. The 4th Respondent has posited thus: the 4th Respondent has not violated the petitioners’ rights; the community was duly involved in the negotiations attendant to the intended lease; the community has been supplied with the requisite information; and the 4th Respondent has been improperly joined. 15.The 6th respondents [County Government of Samburu] did not file any response to the application. In addition, the 6th Respondent did not participate in the proceedings relating to the application. Moreover, the 6th Respondent neither filed any submissions. 16.The 7th Respondent was duly served. However, the 7th Respondent did not file any response. Nevertheless, the 7th Respondent appeared before the court and participated in the proceedings. 17.The subject application came up for directions on various dates including the 24.02.2026 and the 04.05.2026, both days inclusive. The advocates for the parties covenanted to canvass the application by way of written submissions. To this end, the court issued directions pertaining the filing and exchange of the written submissions. 18.The directions were: the Applicants shall file and serve written submissions within 14 days from the date of directions; the Respondents shall file and serve the written submissions within 14 days from the date of service; and the Applicants shall be at liberty to file rejoinder submissions [if any] within 7 days from date of service. 19.The Applicants filed written submissions dated the 18.03.2026 and wherein the applicant[s] have canvassed two [2] key issues. The issues are: The Applicant has established sufficient basis and met the legal threshold to warrant the grant of conservatory and injunctive reliefs; and the applicant[s] shall be disposed to suffer irreparable loss/harm, including environmental degradation, if the orders sought, are not granted. 20.The Applicants have thereafter referenced various decisions underpinning the grant of the conservatory orders. The decisions cited are: Gatirau Peter Munya versus Dickson Mwenda Kithinji and 2 others [2014]eKLR; Judicial Service Commission versus the Speaker of the National Assembly and another [2013] eKLR; Center for Rights Education and Awareness and 7 others versus Attorney General [2011] eKLR; Board of Management of Uhuru Secondary School versus City County Director of Education and 2 others [2015] eKLR; and Mrao Limited versus First American Bank of Kenya Limited and 2 others [2003] eKLR. 21.Premised on the foregoing, the Applicants have implored the court to find and hold that the subject application meets/satisfies the requisite threshold for the grant of Conservatory Orders. The court has been invited to proceed and grant the various reliefs sought at the foot of the application. 22.The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed written submissions dated the 15.05.2026 the named respondents have canvassed and highlighted three key issues. The issues are: the named Respondent engage the community and procured prior consent; public participation was duly undertaken; and the Applicants have neither met nor satisfied the legal threshold to warrant the grant of orders of temporary injunction either as sought or at all. 23.Further, and in addition, the 1st and 2nd Respondents have posited that the Applicants herein have neither established a likelihood to suffer irreparable loss. On the contrary, it has been submitted that the intended lease, which was undertaken with due public participation, is bound to benefit the community. 24.The 1st and 2nd respondents have equally submitted that the Applicants herein have introduced the plea for the issuance of the conservatory orders, vide the submissions, without having amended their application. In this regard, it has been posited that the Applicants cannot depart from their pleadings and seek to canvass a completely new case/relief, on the basis of the written submissions. 25.Premised on the foregoing, the 1st and 2nd Respondents have invited the court to find and hold that the application before the court is devoid of merits and the same ought to be dismissed with costs. 26.The 3rd respondents filed written submissions dated the 18.05.2026. The written submissions have highlighted two [2] key issues. The issues are: Whether the subject petition raises/discloses a cause of action against the 3rd respondent; and whether the claim against the 3rd Respondent is premature and misconceived. 27.Other than the foregoing, the 3rd Respondent has also contended that the applicants have departed from their pleadings and brought fourth the question of conservatory orders, which was never alluded to or contained at the foot of the instant application. In this regard it has been submitted that the submissions touching on the conservatory order are misconceived and ought to the disregarded. 28.The 3rd Respondent has equally contended that the applicant[s] herein have neither pleaded nor supplied the requisite particulars to connect the 3rd respondents to any violation/infringements of the applicant’s constitutional rights. Absent particulars, it has been posited that the petition fails to meet the legal threshold set in the case of Analita Karimi Njeru versus Republic [1979] eKLR. 29.The 4th Respondent did not file any written submissions. Nevertheless, the grounds of opposition by and on behalf of the said Respondent forms part of the record of the court. Suffice it to state that the court is obligated to review same and to deploy the legal issues raised thereunder in the course of crafting the ruling. 30.The 5th and 8th respondents did not file any written submissions. Be that as it, the replying affidavit sworn on the 06.02.2026 is part of the record of the court. Furthermore, the issues raised therein shall be considered and taken into account, including the contention that the Land Registrar, has been improperly impleaded. 31.For the sake of completeness, it is imperative to highlight that the 6th and 7th respondents did not file any written submissions. However, the question pertaining to the joinder of the named Respondents in a matter touching on the community land, shall warrant interrogation and investigation by the court in due course. 32.Having reviewed the Notice of Motion Application [hereinafter referred to as the Application] dated the 30.01.2025; the supporting affidavit sworn on even date; the further affidavit sworn on 06.02.2026; the supplementary affidavit sworn on 06.02.2026; the replying affidavits filed in opposition thereto; the grounds of opposition by the 4th respondents; and upon taking into consideration the written submissions on record, four [4] key issues crystalize for consideration and determination. The issues are: Whether the Applicants have established/satisfied the conditions to warrant the grant of orders of temporary injunction or otherwise; Whether the 3rd Respondent has been improperly joined in the proceedings; Whether the 5th, 6th and 7th respondents have been properly sued; and What reliefs [if any] ought to be granted. 33.Regarding the first issue, it is imperative to reiterate that the applicants herein have approached the court seeking various reliefs. In particular, the Applicants have sought an order of temporary injunction to restrain the Respondents either jointly or individually from inter alia, facilitating the actualization of the lease between the 1st and 2nd Respondents on one hand, and the 3rd respondent, on the other hand, as pertains to the community land belonging Serolipi Community. 34.In addition, the applicants have sought an order of temporary injunction to prohibit and restrain the 2nd and 3rd Respondents from inter alia; advertising, recruiting, hiring, employing or deploying any rangers/staff in respect of the offensive lease, pending the hearing and the determination of the petition. 35.Insofar as the Applicants have sought an order of temporary injunction, it was incumbent upon the Applicants to place before the court credible evidence to underpin their claim that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents did not consult; engage; or involve the Sereolipi Community in the process leading to the execution/intended execution of the lease. However, there is no gainsaying that the applicants herein have fallen short of placing before the court the requisite evidence. 36.On the contrary, the Applicants herein are before this court seeking for various orders to compel the respondents to avail unto them assorted documents; records; statements of accounts; financial statements; and payment records pertaining to and concerning the lease agreement between the 1st and 2nd respondent; and the 3rd respondent, respectively. 37.To my mind, the applicants herein are not sure of the nature of the documents and records that are held by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents pertaining to the process; and engagements [if any] that may have been undertaken with the community prior the impugned lease. As it is, the Applicants are seeking documentation to vindicate the various assertions/averments contained in the body of the petition and in particular, the application. 38.On the other hand, it is worth pointing out that the 1st and 2nd respondents on one hand, and the 3rd Respondent on the other hand, have adverted to various engagements with the community prior to and before the preparation of the impugned lease. Moreover, it is not lost on me that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents have annexed various minutes and resolutions, which on the face of it, show that the public participation; and consultation with the Community was undertaken. 39.It is also instructive to take cognizance of paragraph 19 of the affidavit of David Stogdele sworn on the 06.02.2026 and wherein the deponent has extensively detailed the engagements with the community and supplied minutes to that effect. Suffice it to state, that the Applicants herein have neither controverted nor impeached the deposition contained at paragraph 19 of the named replying affidavit. 40.I am aware that while engaging with an application for temporary injunction, I am not called upon to make precipitate and decisive findings on questions of fact and law. However, there is no gainsaying that I am obligated to review the facts and records, in an endeavor to ascertain whether a prima facie case has been established. [see Jaj Super Power Cash and Carry Ltd vs. Nairobi City Council & 20 others 2005 eKLR]. 41.Have the Applicants established a prima facie case? The crux of the applicant’s case is to the effect that the impugned lease agreement was being undertaken without prior and informed consent of the community. In addition, it has been posited that the Sereolipi community is substantially illiterate and no public awareness was undertaken. 42.Further, and in addition, the Applicants herein have propped their case on lack of public participation. It has been contended that what is being contended as public participation does not meet the qualitative and quantitative analysis, which is paramount. To this end, it has been posited that Article 10 of the Constitution has been infringed upon. 43.Despite the foregoing assertions, it is important to point out that whether the engagements that were undertaken between the 1st , 2nd and 3rd Respondents on one hand, and the community, on the other hand, meets the threshold for public participation is a matter that can only be interrogated during the plenary hearing. Suffice it to state that either side shall be obligated to call evidence and undertake cross examination. Thereafter, the court will ascertain whether the public participation met the threshold. [See the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of British American Tobacco Kenya PLC v Cabinet Secretary for the Ministry of Health & 2 others; Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance & another (Interested Parties); Mastermind Tabacco Kenya Ltd (Affected Party] 44.It is equally not lost on me that allegations of lack of public participation does not automatically negate/ defeat the impugned process. The allegation[s] in question must be taken within the obtaining circumstances. In addition, whether the engagements being alluded to meet the qualitative and quantitive analysis, is to assessed and determined on a case by case basis, taking into account the obtaining circumstance[s]. 45.I am afraid that the Applicants herein have neither established nor demonstrated the existence of a prima facie case on the basis of [sic] lack of public participation. The failure to establish a prima facie case defeats the grant of an order of temporary injunction. [See the holding of the Court of Appeal Kenya Commercial Finance Co. Ltd V. Afraha Education Society. [2001] Vol. 1 EA 86.A]. 46.The next issue that falls for consideration is whether the subject petition and the application, disclose a reasonable cause of action as against the 3rd Respondent. The 3rd Respondent has contended that the petition and the application do not demonstrate any cause of action and therefore the name of the 3rd Respondent ought to be struck out. 47.In addition, it has been contended that the Applicants have neither pleaded not particularized the manner in which, it is contended that the 3rd Respondent has breached/violated the applicant’s rights. In the absence of the requisite particulars, it has been contended that the Applicants are clearly non-suited. 48.Despite the foregoing contention, the 3rd Respondent concedes that it is the investor in whose favour the lease is being issued. In addition, it has been conceded that the 3rd Respondent and the 1st Respondent have been engaged in the on-going negotiations to finalize the lease being complained against. [See Paragraphs 7, 10, 16 , 18 , 19 and 20 of the replying affidavit sworn by David Stogdele]. 49.To my mind, the 3rd Respondent is approbating and reprobating at the same time. It cannot lie in the mouth of the 3rd Respondent that there is no cause of action against it and that same should be struck out the proceedings, while on the other hand conceding that it is the beneficiary of the intended lease. 50.It is important to underscore that the 3rd Respondent herein has a stake in the subject proceedings and if [I say if] its name is struck out from the proceedings, then there is a likelihood of its rights and interest being adversely affected without its participation. Such kind of a scenario, will be contrary to and in contravention of Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution, 2010. 51.In a nutshell, and bearing in mind the definition of what constitutes a cause of action in the case of Kigwor Company Limited v Samedy Trading Company Limited [2021] eKLR, I do find and hold that there exist a cause of action as against the 3rd respondent. For good, measure the 3rd Respondent is properly joined in the subject matter and by extension, same is a necessary party. 52.Turning to the third issue, namely; whether the 5th, 6th and 7th respondents have been properly joined or otherwise. The dispute beforehand touches on the management and administration of community land. It is trite that community land which has not been registered under the Community Land Act, 2016, is to be held on trust for the community by the County Government. In this case, if the community land in question was not registered, then the County Government of Samburu would the custodian of the land. 53.However, it is common ground that the community land in question has been duly registered and a certificate of title duly issued [See Annexture SWG1] attached to the affidavit of Stephen Waithaka Githinji sworn on the 06.02.2026. To this end, it then means that the person responsible the for administration and management of the land is the 1st Respondent and not otherwise. Simply put, the County Government of Samburu has been improperly sued. 54.Regarding the registration of community land, it is imperative to posit that the registration of such land falls within the mandate and authority of the community land registrar. There is a distinction between the community Land Registrar and the land registrar. The former is appointed in accordance with the Community Land Act, 2016; while the latter is appointed pursuant to the Land Registration Act, 2012. 55.Nevertheless, the Applicants have sued the Land Registrar- Nyahururu. I am afraid that the said officer has no mandate and jurisdiction in matters touching on and concerning community land. In this regard, the suit against the Land Registrar is mistaken and legally untenable. 56.With regard to National Land Commission, the 7th respondent, it is settled that its mandate is circumscribed. The mandate of the 7th Respondent is provided for under Article 67 and 68 of the Constitution, 2010; and the National Land Commision Act, 2012; and Sections 9,12,and 13 of the Land Act, 2012 [2016]. To my mind, the commission is only tasked with the management and administration of the public land for and on behalf of the National and County Governments. [See the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Cordison International (K) Limited v. Chairman National Land Commission & 44 others [2019] eKLR ]. 57.Consequently, and in my humble view, the inclusion of the 5th, 6th and 7th respondents in the subject petition is founded on misapprehension of the law. The joinder is premature, misconceived and legally untenable. The named respondents ought not to have been impleaded. 58.The last issue relates to the reliefs, which ought to be granted. The Applicants have sought various reliefs. I shall engage with the reliefs sequentially, nay, individually. 59.The Applicants sought an order of temporary injunction whose import was to bar or prohibit the formalization of the lease agreement and the execution thereof. The Applicants also sought an injunction to prohibit the 2nd and 3rd respondents from inter alia undertaking employment of Rangers and Staff. 60.While dealing with issue number one, I found and held that the Applicants had not established a prima facie case with probability of success. Moreover, I also held that the question as to whether the engagement[s] that were undertaken between the 1st and 2nd Respondents and the community amounted to public participation, can only be determined during the plenary hearing. 61.Having found and held that the Applicants did not establish a prima facie case, which is a pre-condition to the grant of an order of temporary injunction, it suffices that no basis, or legal foundation exist[s] to warrant the grant of the orders of temporary injunction. [See the holding in Nguruman Limited versus Jan Bonde Nielsen and another [2014] eKLR.] 62.The other prayer that has been sought relates to an interim order to compel the 6th respondent, who is said to be the designated trustee of the community land to immediately revoke any approvals, consents, licence, lease or facilitation issued to and in favour of the 1st and 2nd respondents as pertains to the suit land. 63.It is imperative to highlight that the 6th Respondent [the County Government of Samburu] was only a designated trustee to hold the unregistered community land pending registration thereof. Suffice it to state that upon registration of community land, the role of the County Government ceases. On the contrary, upon registration the mandate to administer and manage the registered community land vests in the appointed Community Land Management Community [CLMC] and not the County Government. [See Section 6 and 7 of the Community Land Act, 2016]. 64.In view of the foregoing positions, I am afraid that the prayer sought as against the 6th Respondent is misplaced. Moreover, there is no gainsaying that the prayer in question has been sought on the basis of mis apprehension of Section 6 [7] of the Community Land Act, 2016. In short, the prayer under reference is legally untenable. 65.The other prayer that has been sought relates to the issuance of a prohibitory order to restrain the 1st,2nd and 3rd respondents from [sic] intimidating, harassing, threatening, bribing or any other manner interfering with any community members. I hasten to state that the assertions being made by the applicants, if true, constitute cognizable offences known under the Penal Code, Chapter 63 Laws of Kenya. To this end, the Applicants [if same are truly honest] ought to lodge their complaints with the Inspector General of police to warrant due investigations and appropriate actions. [See the provisions of Articles 243 and 244 of the Constitution, 2010] 66.To my mind, the making of the said assertions, albeit without taking precipitate steps in accordance with the established procedure, is tantamount to jumping the gun. The Applicants herein must not be heard to cry wolf. The same ought to bite the bullet and mount their complaints for due and necessary actions by the concerned state agency. 67.The Applicants have also sought orders to compel the 5th Respondent [the Land Registrar- Nyahururu] to supply them with various documents pertaining to and concerning inter alia, the registers; the adjudication records, and subdivision maps, concerned with the proposed lease over the community land. 68.I wish to reiterate that the Land Registrar, who is appointed under the Land Registration Act, 2012, is not the custodian of documents and records concerning community land. I repeat that there is a distinction between the Community Land Registrar [appointed under the community Land Act] and the Land Registrar. The Applicants need to appreciate the difference and there after channel their complaints/grievances to the appropriate office. 69.In my humble view, the prayer in terms of clause [6] of the application is misguided. Further, and in any event, there is no gainsaying that the provisions of Section 8 of the Access to Information Act, 2016, lays down an established mechanism for procuring information and document[s] held by the state organ/body/department or otherwise. The Applicants need to internalize the provisions of the named Act. 70.There are two more issues which require a short discussion. The issues include: Whether this court has jurisdiction to compel the 1st, 2nd and 4th respondents to disclose and furnish the Applicants with certified copies of all books of accounts; financial statements; payments records; and all related documents regarding the existing lease or prior leasing arrangements. 71.To my mind, what the Applicants are seeking is an order to compel provision of information and documents. The Applicants are surely, entitled to partake of and benefit from the rights underpinned by Article 35 of the Constitution, 2010. However, the Applicants need to be reminded that there is an established protocol for procuring such information. The Applicants are obligated to abide by the law in their endeavor to procure information. The approach being deployed vide the subject application, is clearly, unorthodox; and unacceptable in the eye[s] of the Law. 72.In the case of Aluochier v Senate & 2 others [2025] KESC 59 (KLR), the Supreme Court [the Apex Court] underscored the need of any party to follow the established protocol while seeking to procure information in accordance with Article 35 of the Constitution. 73.The apex court stated thus:63.The Access to Information Act No 31 of 2016 enforces the right of citizens to access information as outlined in Article 35 of the Constitution. Section 5 of the Act details the procedures for disclosing information by public entities, including the decision-making process, channels of supervision, accountability, and norms for fulfilling their functions. Section 6 sets out the limits on disclosing information. These limits include, under section (d), disclosures that could result in an unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy, other than that of the applicant or the person on whose behalf an application has been made with proper authority. Section 6(5) also states that a public entity is not required to provide information to a requester if that information can reasonably be obtained through other means.64.If a decision has been made to refuse access to the information requested, Section 14 of the Act states that an applicant may submit a written request to the Commission on Administrative Justice for a review of the public entity's decision. Such a review should be requested within thirty days of the public entity's decision. Sections 20 to 23 outline the broad mandate and functions of the Commission in its inquiries, including investigative roles. A person who is dissatisfied with the commission's decision may appeal to the High Court within 21 days of the order being issued.65.In Njonjo Mue & another v Chairperson of Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 others [2017] KESC 45 (KLR) this court expunged internal correspondence between members of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission in the presidential election petition from the record of the court. In its determination, the court stated that the information should flow from the custodial of such information and that citizens should follow the prescribed procedure whenever they require access to information (paragraphs 13 to 23):“…Article 35(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution, read with section 3 of the Access to Information Act would thus show without unequivocation that all citizens have the right to access information held by the state, or public agencies including bodies…..We also recognize that information held by the State or State organs, unless for very exceptional circumstances, ought to be freely shared with the public. However, such information should flow from the custodian of such information to the recipients in a manner recognized under the law without undue restriction to access of any such information…. Further, a duty has also been imposed upon the citizen(s) to follow the prescribed procedure whenever they require access to any such information. This duty cannot be abrogated or derogated from, as any such derogation would lead to a breach and/or violation of the fundamental principles of freedom of access to information provided under the Constitution and the constituting provisions of the law. It is a two-way channel where the right has to be balanced with the obligation to follow due process….” 74.Without belaboring the point, the prayer contained at the foot of clause number [8] of the application beforehand is clearly premature and misconceived. Furthermore, the Applicants need to appraise themselves of the court to which an application [if at all] for such information ought to be mounted. Clearly, the provisions of Article 35 of the Constitution does not fall within the mandate of the Environment and Land Court. 75.The final aspect that merits consideration touches on the issue of the conservatory orders. The Applicants herein raised and canvassed the plea of conservatory orders vide their written submissions. However, the issue of conservatory orders and whether same ought to issue, was neither captured nor contained in the body of the application. Simply put, the issue of conservatory order was being “smuggled” to the court through the back door. 76.It is trite and established that a party cannot canvass a new issue; or seek to introduce a new relief, through the submissions. If the Applicants were desirous to seek a conservatory order, then it behooved the applicants to amend their application. Barring amendments, the issue of conservatory orders did not lie for consideration by this court. [See the decision of the Court of Appeal in Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission versus Stephen Mutinda Mule and others [2014] eKLR; and Emuria versus Sambu[2025]KECA]. Conclusion 77.The Applicants herein had approached the court seeking a plethora of reliefs. The reliefs that were sought were omnibus in nature. Some of the reliefs fell outside the jurisdiction of this court. The rest of the reliefs were either premature and misconceived; or were basically premised on unproven assertions. Suffice it to state that the Applicants bore the burden of proving their claims. 78.To my mind, the Applicants did not discharge the requisite burden. In this regard, there is no gainsaying the application beforehand is devoid of merits; and thus a sure candidate for dismissal. Final orders: 79.Flowing from the foregoing, the final orders that commend themselves to the court are:i.The Application dated the 30.10.2025 be and is hereby Dismissed.ii.The Petition as against the 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents be and is hereby struck out.iii.Costs of the application be and are hereby awarded to the Respondents.iv.Costs of the Petition [the limb of the Petition struck out] be and hereby awarded to 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents.v.The costs in terms of clause [iii] and [iv] hereof shall be agreed upon and in default be taxed in the conventional manner. 80.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ISIOLO THIS 08TH DAYOF JUNE, 2026.OGUTTU MBOYA, FCIArb; CPM[MTI-EA]JUDGEIn the presence of-:Court Assistant: Zakayo/MukamiMr. George Oduor for the Petitioners/ApplicantsMr. Lenakio for the 1st and 2nd RespondentsMs. Brenda Wangila for the 3rd RespondentMs. Nkirote Kinuu for the 5th and 8th RespondentsMr. Hasea holding brief for Mr. Adano for the 7th RespondentN/A appearance for the 4th RespondentN/A appearance for the 6th Respondent