KISUMU, 4th Nov 2026 – A Kisumu advocate has asked the county government to disclose records concerning Kachok/Baby Pendo Botanical Park, following reports that the facility was closed and its signage removed.
Joshua Odhiambo Nyamori, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and Convener of Kisumu Rise Movement, submitted the request to the County Secretary on November 2, 2026. He cited Articles 35(1)(a), 10 and 201 of the Constitution and the Access to Information Act, No. 31 of 2016.
Nyamori says he seeks existing county records, not new evidence or a determination of a registered proprietor’s rights. The request covers twelve categories of records.
Nyamori seeks land registry documents for Kisumu Municipality Block 9/126 and subdivisions 9/447 and 9/448, alongside council minutes and resolutions from 1985 to 2005.
He also wants the institutional file concerning a September 14, 1999, letter from the then Town Clerk reportedly permitting temporary use of the site as a bus park.
Other requested documents include pleadings and legal-status briefs for Kisumu Environment and Land Court Case No. 3 of 2019, and due-diligence records relied upon before the park project proceeded, particularly after the March 18, 2021 judgment.
The request includes procurement records for tender CGK/COK/KUSP/W/2019-2020/03-2, Lot 2, and financial documents relating to the park and memorial.
Nyamori seeks budgets, payment certificates, and ledger extracts from financial year 2017/2018 to date, focusing on amounts actually paid rather than those budgeted.
The advocate also sought incident reports, correspondence, demand letters, notices, photographs and administrative decisions concerning the reported closure, padlocking or removal of signage around October 31 and November 1, 2026.
Nyamori has asked the county to preserve records and notify him and the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) if any known document cannot be located, while continuing its search.
He rejects blanket refusals based on court proceedings. “A general assertion that ‘the matter is in court’ is not a substitute for a record-specific decision,” he states, urging separate responses and lawful reasons for withholding any document.
Nyamori invokes Article 35 as the basis for seeking state-held information. Articles 10 and 201 address governance and public-finance principles, including transparency and accountability.
In his letter to the county secretary, Nyamori said he reserves the right to seek review by the CAJ under Section 14 of the Access to Information Act if the county fails to respond adequately or unlawfully withholds records.
He says the request does not claim the judgment has been set aside or seek cancellation of a registered title without due process.
The county’s response could lead to statutory review if the requested information is denied or inadequately provided.
