https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3511

Mochache v Land Registrar, Nyamira County & another; Commission on Administrative Justice & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3511 (KLR) (10 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3511 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nyamira Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2023 DO Ohungo, J June 10, 2026 Between Jenifer Nyaboke Mochache Petitioner and Land Registrar, Nyamira County 1st Respondent Land Surveyor, Nyamira County 2nd Respondent and Commission On Administrative Justice Interested Party Grace Kwamboka Mbuga Interested Party Wesley Otieri Interested Party Judgment 1.The Petitioner moved the Court through Petition dated 9th October 2023 in which she averred that the First Respondent wrote a letter dated 8th March 2023 to her as well as the Second and Third Interested Parties stating that a boundary dispute had been reported between parcel numbers Lietego Settlement Scheme/404 and 405 and requiring them to appear at the site the boundary on 6th April 2023 at 10.00am when the Respondents would visit the site to establish and fix the boundary in accordance with the mutation and the area RIM. 2.The Petitioner further averred that the letter was “very scanty on information” which could not aid her effective participation and that she wrote a letter dated 3rd April 2023 to the First Respondent giving her version of the background, requesting information and documents and seeking rescheduling of the visit. That the First Respondent did not provide the details but instead proceeded with the exercise in her absence. 3.She further averred that her advocates wrote to the First Respondent on 17th April 2023 seeking information pursuant to Article 35 (1) of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Access to Information Act and that when there was no response, she instituted proceedings before the First Interested Party. That the First Interested Party wrote a letter dated 21st August 2023 directing the First Respondent to respond to her letter dated 17th April 2023, but the First Respondent did not comply. 4.Consequently, the Petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:i.That an order be and is hereby issued adopting and allowing enforcement of the 1st Interested party’s directives to the 1st Respondent in the letter dated 21st August 2023 and as such this Honourable Court does hereby direct that the 1st Respondent shall forthwith respond to the Applicant’s email communication dated 17th April 2023 whereby the Applicant had requested for a copy of Respondent’s Report on the boundary confirmation exercise conducted on 6th April 2023 relating to an alleged boundary dispute involving land title numbers Lietego Settlement Scheme/404 and 405.ii.That in line with the email dated 17th April 2023 the Report should indicate the purpose, details, findings, outcomes and recommendations and/or such other decisions arising from the exercise that was conducted on 6th April 2023 in line with the Respondent’s aforesaid letter dated 8th March 2023 and how the issues raised in the Applicant’s letter and email exchanges with the 1sr Respondent between 3rd April 2023 and 6th April 2023 regarding the boundary confirmation exercise were addressed and resolved by the 1st Respondent.iii.That the costs of this application be borne by the Respondent on full indemnity basis.iv.Such further or other orders as it may deem just and expedient for the ends of justice. 5.The Petition is supported by an affidavit sworn by the Petitioner in which she rehashed the contents of the Petition. 6.The Respondents filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by the First Respondent George Kariuki Maina on 10th April 2026. He confirmed that he wrote the letter dated 8th March 2023 and added that despite having sufficient notice and knowledge of the exercise through the area Chief of Esise Location, the Petitioner protested barely a day to the scheduled exercise, through an email dated 4th April 2023. He added that he nevertheless addressed the Petitioner's concerns on 5th April 2023 through an email whose receipt the Petitioner's advocate acknowledged. 7.The First Respondent further deposed that the exercise was conducted as scheduled on 6th April 2023 in the presence of the Second Respondent but the Petitioner who was the registered proprietor of parcel number Lietego Settlement Scheme/405 did not show up. That on 17th April 2023, the Petitioner's Advocate sought to be supplied with the report in respect of the exercise and that when the report was ready, he supplied it on 5th June 2023 to the concerned parties including the Petitioner through the area Chief. 8.He also deposed that he received a letter from the First Interested Party on 21st August 2023 herein stating that the Petitioner had lodged an application for review under the Access to Information Act, 2016 and added that he supplied all information within his custody to the Petitioner through letters dated 5th June 2023 and 15th December 2023. 9.The First Interested Party filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 27th March 2025 by Mercy K Wambua, its Commission Secretary who deposed that the First Interested Party acted on the Petitioner’s complaint and that the First Respondent complied by providing the requested information through a letter dated 15th December 2023. 10.On 5th November 2025, the Court gave directions that the Petition be canvassed through written submissions. None of the parties filed any submissions. Principal Litigation Counsel on record for the Respondents stated that the Respondents would rely entirely on the Replying Affidavit sworn by Mr George Kariuki Maina. 11.I have carefully considered the Petition and the affidavits on record. The issues for determination are whether the Petitioner’s right of access to information was violated and whether the reliefs sought should issue. 12.Article 35 of the Constitution provides for a right of access to information as follows:(1)Every citizen has the right of access to –(a)information held by the State; and(b)information held by another person and required for the exercise or protection of any right or fundamental freedom.(2)Every person has the right to the correction or deletion of untrue or misleading information that affects the person.(3)The State shall publish and publicise any important information affecting the nation. 13.The Supreme Court held as follows in Kenya Railways Corporation & 2 others v Okoiti & 3 others [2023] KESC 38 (KLR): 84.Article 35 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 provides for the right to access information held by the State, including that held by public bodies. The Access to Information Act No 31 of 2016 was enacted to give effect to article 35 and sets out the procedure to be followed when requesting information including on the mandate of the Commission on the Administrative Justice. Pursuant to this provision, citizens should be able to access the information by first, requesting for the information from the relevant State agency. In Kahindi Lekalhaile & 4 others v Inspector General National Police Service & 3 others Nrb Petition No 25 of 2013 [2013] eKLR, the High Court stated as follows:“However, in order for this right to be justiciable, it must be established that the person seeking the information has sought the information, and access to such information has been denied. ... In the instant case, no request for information has been made to the respondents. The enforcement of the right cannot therefore be said to have crystallized. 85.The right to institute an action in court only crystallizes once a citizen has requested for the information from the State and the request has been denied or not provided. ... 14.As is manifest from prayer (i) of the Petition, the Petitioner essentially moved the Court seeking enforcement of the First Interested Party’s directives to the First Respondent as captured in the former’s letter dated 21st August 2023. The letter addressed the First Respondent as follows:The Commission is the Oversight and Enforcement Agency of the Access to Information Act, 2016 (ATI, Act 2016).An application for review under section 14(1) (a) ATI Act, 2016 has been lodged by AKO Advocates LLP on behalf of Jennifer Nyaboke Mochache.The Applicant states that on 17th April 2023 (copy enclosed) he requested for a copy of Land Registrars’ Report on the boundary confirmation exercise conducted on 6th April 2023 relating to the alleged boundary dispute involving land title numbers; Lietego Settlement Scheme/404 and 405.This is therefore to request you to respond to the Applicant soonest in line with section 9(4) of ATI, Act 2016.Your prompt response will be highly appreciated. 15.The First Responded stated in his replying affidavit that the information was supplied to the Petitioner through letter dated 5th June 2023 and later copied to the First Interested Party through letter dated 15th December 2023. The First Interested Party also confirmed in its affidavit that the information was supplied. 16.The Petitioner has not filed any affidavit to counter the position taken by the First Responded and the First Interested Party. I note that the information was supplied some four months before the Petition was filed. The Petitioner has not demonstrated a violation of her right of access to information. It follows that the reliefs sought cannot issue. 17.In view of the foregoing discourse, I find no merit in the Petition and I therefore dismiss it. Each party to bear own costs. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA, THIS 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.D. O. OHUNGOJUDGEDelivered in the presence of:Mr Mathenge for the PetitionerNo appearance by the RespondentsNo appearance by the Interested PartiesCourt Assistant: B Kerubo