https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7752

Ouko v Independent Policing Oversight Authority (Judicial Review E425 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7752 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (4 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7752 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Judicial Review Judicial Review E425 of 2025 TW Ouya, J June 4, 2026 Between Omondi Ouko Applicant and Independent Policing Oversight Authority Respondent Ruling 1.The Applicant moved this honourable court via a Notice of Motion dated 17th February 2026 seeking orders that:i.This Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order compelling Safaricom PLC to produce certified call detail records (CDRs) for the period 1st August 2025 to 30th November 2025 in respect of telephone number 0798877978, showing Outgoing calls, Incoming calls, Dates, Times, and Call duration.ii.This Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order compelling Safaricom PLC to produce certified call detail records for telephone number 0726950112 specifically for 17th October 2025, 23rd October 2025, 27th October 2025 and 11th November 2025 showing whether any incoming calls were received on those dates, and if so, from which numbers. 2.The Application was premised on the Supporting Affidavit of Omondi Ouko of even date brought on grounds that the Applicant wanted to challenge the averments in the Respondent’s Replying Affidavit where the Respondent had alleged that he had made several attempts to reach the Applicant but the Applicant was unreachable through his registered mobile phone numbers. The Respondent had specifically alleged that he had tried reaching the Applicant on 17th October 2025, 23rd October 2025, 27th October 2025 and 11th November 2025 to the Applicant’s registered phone number 0726950112. 3.The Applicant contended that the Respondent never reached out to him in any way, instead, it is he who had tried to reach the Respondent severally through mobile phone number 0798877978 from August through November 2025, but his calls went unanswered or were ignored. 4.The Applicant maintained that grant of the orders sought would be useful in determining the truth of the matter considering the contradictory positions taken by the Applicant and the Respondent regarding the communication between the parties. 5.The Applicant also filed written submissions dated 26th March 2026 where he submitted that he had met the threshold for grant of the orders sought. 6.The Respondent also filed submissions dated 13th April 2026. The Respondent contended that since the Call Data Records in question were in respect of the Applicant’s own phone number, there was no reason for a court order as the Data Protection Act empowers data subjects to obtain their personal data from data controllers upon request. Therefore, the instant application was misguided and not hinged on any law. The Respondent thus urged that the application be dismissed. 7.Upon perusing the application herein and the submissions by both parties, the main issue for consideration is whether the Applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought. 8.The scope of the order of mandamus was discussed by the Court of Appeal in the case of Kenya National Examination Council vs. Republic ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 Others [1997] eKLR thus:“What is the scope and efficacy of an order of Mandamus? Once again, we turn to Halsbury’s Law of England, 4th Edition Volume 1 at page 111 From Paragraph 89. That learned treatise says: “The order of mandamus is of a most extensive remedial nature, and is, in form, a command issuing from the High Court of Justice, directed to any person, corporation or inferior tribunal, requiring him or them to do some particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. Its purpose is to remedy the defects of justice and accordingly it will issue, to the end that justice may be done, in all cases where there is a specific legal right and no specific legal remedy for enforcing that right; and it may issue in cases where, although there is an alternative legal remedy, yet that mode of redress is less convenient, beneficial and effectual. “At paragraph 90 headed “the mandate” it is stated: “The order must command no more than the party against whom the application is made is legally bound to perform. Where a general duty is imposed, a mandamus cannot require it to be done at once. Where a statute, which imposes a duty leaves discretion as to the mode of performing the duty in the hands of the party on whom the obligation is laid, a mandamus cannot command the duty in question to be carried out in a specific way.” 9.The principles established in the aforementioned cases affirm that a mandamus order compels the execution of a public duty imposed by statute on an individual or entity, where such individual or entity has neglected to carry out that duty, thereby prejudicing a party with a legal entitlement to its performance. 10.The question is whether the Exparte Applicant has met the threshold for grant of the order of mandamus. The Applicant is seeking to compel Safaricom Plc to produce his own Call data records for the aforementioned period. 11.The Data Protection Act is the primary legislation that governs the collection and processing of personal data of individuals. As both a data controller and a data processor, Safaricom plc has obligations towards data subjects as pursuant to the Act. As submitted by the Respondent, Section 26 (b) of the Data Protection Act provides that a data subject has the right to access their personal data in custody of data controller or data processor. Therefore, a data subject does not require any court order to access their own personal data in the custody of a data controller. 12.It is an established principle that mandamus does not issue where there is an alternative remedy. In the instant case, the Applicant has not demonstrated that he has made any effort to obtain the Call Data Records from Safaricom and that the same has been denied. It is required that he first exhausts all possible options or remedies available before seeking the intervention of this honorable court. 13.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion dated 17th February 2026 is not merited and I proceed to dismiss it. Costs shall abide the outcome of the main suit. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.HON. T. W. OUYA, OGWJUDGEIn the presence of:Omondi Ouko – Applicant in person.Kassim Mwakitoa for Waiganjo for RespondentNyabuto – Court Assistant