Automated Summary
Key Facts
The court dismissed the applicants' request to compel the DPP to provide documents related to their criminal charges, finding they failed to comply with sections 8 and 9 of the Access to Information Act. The applicants did not demonstrate prior written requests for the information or evidence of rejection, violating the principle of exhausting administrative remedies before judicial intervention. The ruling emphasized that courts should not be the first recourse for accessing information under Article 35 of the Constitution.
Issues
- The court determined that the Applicants did not follow the required procedures under the Access to Information Act before invoking judicial review, leading to the dismissal of their application.
- The Applicants argued for access to internal communications under Article 35, but the court found no compliance with the necessary steps, questioning the applicability of the right in this context.
- The court affirmed the principle that applicants must exhaust all administrative remedies, including those under the Access to Information Act, before seeking judicial orders, citing the doctrine of exhaustion.
Holdings
- The Application is unmerited and hereby dismissed. The Applicants had not complied with sections 8 and 9 of the Act prior to approaching this court, making the application premature. They must first comply with the aforesaid sections and only return to this court if the Respondents fail to provide access.
- No orders as to costs were made in the case.
- The court found it unnecessary to consider the merits and demerits of the Application due to non-compliance with the Act's procedural requirements.
Legal Principles
The court emphasized the principle of exhaustion of remedies, requiring parties to first attempt to resolve disputes through available administrative procedures before seeking judicial intervention. This was affirmed in cases like The Speaker of the National Assembly vs. Kameme (1992) KLR 21 and Geoffrey Mutaiya Kebirua and 2 others vs Samuel (2015) eKLR, where courts underscored that judicial consideration should be a 'fora of last resort' after exhausting external dispute resolution mechanisms.
Precedent Name
- The Speaker of the National Assembly vs. Kameme
- Geoffrey Mutaiya Kebirua and 2 others vs Samuel
- Edwin Harold Dayan & 3 others vs Inspector General of police service
- Kenya Society for the mentally handicapped vs. A.G and others
- Andrew Omotatah Okoiti vs. A.G and 2 others
Cited Statute
- Constitution of Kenya, Article 35
- Access to Information Act 2016
- Fair Administrative Act
- Constitution of Kenya, Article 157(10)
Judge Name
S. Chirchir
Passage Text
- Before an Application is made to court to compel the state or another person to disclose any information that is required for the exercise or protection of any right or fundamental freedom the Applicant must first demonstrate that a request for the information required was made to the state or other person in possession of the same and the request was disallowed.
- There is therefore no evidence that in seeking to exercise their rights under Article 35, the Applicants have complied with the requirements that have been clearly set out under sections 8 and 9 of the Act.
- To the extent therefore that the Applicants had not complied with section 8 and 9 of the Act prior to approaching this court, then the present application is premature.