Inside Katiba Institute’s Fight for Justice Through Landmark Court Cases

Katiba Institute has used public interest litigation to challenge alleged constitutional violations, defend fundamental freedoms, and promote transparency and accountability.

Although the organisation has developed several strands of work, litigation has become one of its best-known activities, enabling it to pursue legal remedies on issues affecting communities, grassroots organisations, and the wider public.

The 2010 Constitution expanded access to justice through Articles 22 and 258, which allow individuals and organisations to institute court proceedings to enforce the Bill of Rights and the Constitution more broadly.

Katiba Institute assesses potential cases based on their constitutional significance and likely public impact. The process involves research, consultation with experts, and engagement with civil society partners to identify legal issues requiring judicial intervention.

Securing Community Rights in the LAPSSET Project

The Lamu Port-South Sudan-Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) Corridor Project, one of Kenya's largest infrastructure developments, became the subject of a major constitutional dispute over public participation, environmental protection, and the rights of communities affected by the construction of Lamu Port.

Residents of Lamu County raised concerns that they had been excluded from key decision-making processes and denied adequate information about the project's potential effects on their livelihoods, the environment, and their cultural heritage.

The construction of the port threatened traditional fishing grounds and marine ecosystems on which local communities depended. Residents also questioned the adequacy of environmental safeguards and the failure to sufficiently involve the Lamu County Government in the project's planning and implementation.

Katiba Institute intervened by representing Lamu residents in Mohamed Ali Baadi & Others v Attorney-General & Others, Petition No. 22 of 2012, challenging the constitutionality and legality of the project's planning and implementation.

The organisation argued that the project had proceeded without meaningful public participation, adequate disclosure of information, or proper involvement of the county government. The petition also challenged alleged failures to comply with environmental safeguards and protect the traditional fishing livelihoods and cultural rights of affected communities.

Through the case, Katiba Institute sought to ensure that major infrastructure developments complied with constitutional principles of public participation, transparency, environmental sustainability, and accountability.

Beyond the courtroom, the organisation worked with community partners to strengthen residents' understanding of their rights and support their participation in the legal process.

On April 30, 2018, a four-judge bench of the High Court ruled in favour of the petitioners, finding that the implementation of the LAPSSET project had violated several constitutional and legal requirements.

The court identified violations relating to public participation, access to information, environmental protection, and the involvement of the Lamu County Government. It also recognised traditional fishing rights as constitutionally protected interests and found that the project threatened the cultural rights of Lamu residents.

The judgment directed that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) licence for Lamu Port be returned to the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) for reconsideration. The project proponents were also directed to strengthen public participation, comply with environmental mitigation measures, and protect the community's cultural heritage.

One of the most significant aspects of the ruling was the award of KSh 1.76 billion in compensation to 4,734 affected fisherfolk.

In April 2025, Katiba Institute, working with Save Lamu and Natural Justice, conducted community engagement sessions to explain the judgment, assess progress in its implementation, and gather residents' views on outstanding compensation measures.

Defending Civic Space and Freedom of Association: The Community Groups Registration Act Case

Katiba Institute also challenged legislation that it argued threatened the ability of grassroots organisations and community-based groups to operate freely.

The Community Groups Registration Act, 2022, was enacted to regulate community-based organisations and grassroots groups in Kenya. However, several provisions raised constitutional concerns, particularly regarding freedom of association under Article 36 of the Constitution.

The law contained provisions that critics considered vague and overly broad, granting government officials extensive discretion to register, audit, and deregister community groups. Questions were also raised about the level of public participation during the law's enactment, particularly whether communities and organisations directly affected by its provisions had been adequately consulted.

On February 27, 2024, Katiba Institute and Mathare Social Justice Centre filed a constitutional petition challenging the Act.

The petition questioned the adequacy of public participation in the legislative process, the vagueness of several provisions, and the extensive discretionary powers granted to government officials.

It also sought to defend citizens' right to challenge legislation they considered unconstitutional directly. Katiba Institute argued that Articles 22 and 258 allow citizens to approach the courts to enforce constitutional rights and challenge unconstitutional laws without first having to petition Parliament under Article 119.

Through the case, the organisation sought to protect grassroots organisations from excessive state control and uphold constitutional safeguards for civic participation and freedom of association.

In September 2026, the High Court, through Justice Lawrence Mugambi, declared the Community Groups Registration Act unconstitutional over its failure to meet the constitutional threshold for meaningful public participation.

The court found that Parliament had predominantly considered submissions from state actors without adequately engaging the community groups and grassroots organisations most affected by the legislation.

The court also upheld concerns raised by the petitioners regarding vague statutory provisions, emphasising the need for clarity and legal certainty in legislation affecting constitutional rights.

Additionally, the judgment confirmed that citizens could directly challenge the constitutionality of legislation in court without first pursuing parliamentary remedies under Article 119.

However, the court suspended the effect of its declaration of invalidity for six months, giving Parliament an opportunity to address the constitutional defects identified in the judgment.

If Parliament fails to remedy the defects within the stipulated period, the declaration of invalidity will take effect at midnight on February 10, 2027.

Safaricom PLC v Robert Wanjala Kituyi: Challenging SLAPP Suits

Katiba Institute's public interest litigation work has also extended to the intersection of journalism, access to information, data privacy, and corporate accountability.

The organisation took up the case of investigative journalist Robert Wanjala Kituyi after he sought information from Safaricom PLC concerning requests by police authorities for customers' personal data, amid heightened concerns about abductions and enforced disappearances following the 2024 Finance Bill protests.

On November 6, 2024, Kituyi submitted a request under Article 35 of the Constitution and the Access to Information Act, seeking details about the number of court orders Safaricom had received from police authorities between June and October 2024.

He also sought information about the safeguards the telecommunications company had put in place to protect customer privacy and how it handled requests for personal information.

Safaricom declined to provide the requested information, prompting Kituyi to seek the intervention of the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ).

The Commission found that Safaricom had violated the right to access information and directed the company to disclose the requested details.

Safaricom subsequently appealed the decision, arguing that its status as a private entity limited its disclosure obligations and that releasing the information could affect its commercial interests.

Katiba Institute undertook Kituyi's legal representation in Safaricom PLC v Robert Wanjala Kituyi, High Court Civil Appeal No. HCCA E207 of 2025, defending his right to seek information on a matter of significant public interest.

The organisation argued that transparency regarding how telecommunications companies handle personal data was essential to protecting constitutional rights, particularly amid concerns about surveillance, abductions, and enforced disappearances.

Katiba Institute also raised concerns that Safaricom's appeal had characteristics of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), a term used to describe legal action that can impose substantial costs on individuals or organisations engaged in public-interest activities and potentially discourage further scrutiny.

The organisation warned that costly litigation against a journalist exercising constitutional rights could discourage public-interest reporting and limit access to information on issues affecting the public.

Katiba Institute further supported the Commission on Administrative Justice's efforts to participate in the proceedings, alongside applications by media freedom advocates, including Media Defence, seeking to join the case as amici curiae, or friends of the court.

Katiba Institute's intervention highlights the importance of protecting journalists who seek information on matters of public concern. The outcome of the appeal will have implications for the interpretation of access-to-information obligations and the accountability of private entities holding information relevant to the public interest.