[2021] KEELRC 928 (KLR)
The court found no substantive basis for recusal, emphasizing that technological challenges experienced by a party during a hybrid or online hearing do not constitute grounds for judicial recusal. The court had made reasonable efforts to accommodate all parties, including allowing breaks and facilitating...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELRC 928 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Jackson Nthuku Mutiso; Respondent: Tanathi Water Services Board; Respondent: Kitui Water and Sanitation Company; Respondent: The Chief Officer, Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Irrigation, County Government of Kitui
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1899 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Cause / Ruling on Recusal Application and Adjournment
- Outcome
- Recusal application dismissed; hearing deferred; nominal costs awarded against 2nd Respondent.
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Recusal, Virtual Hearings, Adjournment Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jackson Nthuku Mutiso
Claimant
Tanathi Water Services Board
Respondent
Kitui Water and Sanitation Company
Respondent
The Chief Officer, Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Irrigation, County Government of Kitui
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Cause / Ruling on Recusal Application and Adjournment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judge should recuse himself from hearing the matter due to alleged bias or procedural unfairness.
- 2 Whether the technological challenges faced by a party justify recusal or adjournment.
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded for adjournment caused by a party's inability to proceed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found no substantive basis for recusal, emphasizing that technological challenges experienced by a party during a hybrid or online hearing do not constitute grounds for judicial recusal. The court had made reasonable efforts to accommodate all parties, including allowing breaks and facilitating participation. The application for recusal was dismissed as lacking merit. The hearing was deferred due to the 2nd Respondent's witness being unable to participate, and nominal adjournment costs were imposed on the 2nd Respondent to compensate for the delay caused. The court underscored that dissatisfaction with the outcome of an application or technical difficulties do not justify...
Court Disposition
Recusal application dismissed; hearing deferred; nominal costs awarded against 2nd Respondent.
Orders
- The motion for recusal is dismissed.
- Hearing is deferred on application of the 2nd Respondent due to witness's inability to participate.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS
COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 1899 OF 2016
JACKSON NTHUKU MUTISO.....………..…......................…….……………CLAIMANT
VERSUS
TANATHI WATER SERVICES BOARD………......…....................…..1ST RESPONDENT
KITUI WATER AND SANITATION COMPANY...........................….2ND RESPONDENT
THE CHIEF OFFICER,MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, WATER AND IRRIGATION,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF KITUI………………..........................3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
1. I have read the Motion seeking my recusal and I see nothing of substance in it to allow for recusal of the Court. The other parties were in attendance, dully participated and the fact the 1st Respondent had technological challenges in this Covid era is not to be blamed on the Court. Counsels should note applications are lost and non every time and whenever a party loses because it did not present a cogent application or case it cannot be basis for recusal. As no basis arises for recusal Motion is dismissed.
2. The parties before Court can attest we have in the last 30 minutes been seeking to have the parties on board and to have their gadgets working and we even took a break to allow for a party who was not on to be on-boarded. The advocate applying for recusal even had a challenge addressing Court earlier and the Court sought and was notified by Mr. Mbeche of his predicaments. To turn around and say a party will not get justice for the foregoing reasons is intellectual dishonesty and not something that should be heard in these times when the mode of hearing is a hybrid of online or, in person hearing or a mix of the 2. Parties had been invited for hearing in person but the witness for the 2nd Respondent who has challenges is the cause for the online hearing today.
3. Hearing will be deferred on application of the 2nd Respondent as it seems the witness is unable to be heard due to hiccups on the witnesses end. However, the 2nd Respondent will be mulcted in nominal costs of adjournment of the matter being Kshs. 1,000/- adjournment fee.
4. Hearing date to be given after consultation with advocates for parties on the date.
So ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 22nd day of September 2021
Nzioki wa Makau
JUDGE