[2025] KEELC 654 (KLR)
The judge found that his close familial relationship with counsel for the plaintiff created a real danger of bias or the appearance of partiality, necessitating his recusal to uphold the principles of impartiality and public confidence in the judiciary. Furthermore, considering the value and nature of the subject...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 654 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lydia Jepkemboi; Defendant: Shadrack Kipkurui Chirchir; Defendant: Joseph Kipkoech Mutai; Defendant: The Land Registrar Nandi County
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E013 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Recusal and Transfer of Suit
- Outcome
- Suit transferred to Kapsabet Chief Magistrate’s Court; judge recused himself.
- Judges
- GMA Ongondo
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Recusal, Jurisdiction Transfer, Land Ownership Disputes, Fraud in Land Transactions
- 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
Lydia Jepkemboi
Plaintiff
Shadrack Kipkurui Chirchir
Defendant
Joseph Kipkoech Mutai
Defendant
The Land Registrar Nandi County
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Recusal and Transfer of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the presiding judge should recuse himself due to a close familial relationship with counsel for the plaintiff.
- 2 Whether the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet has jurisdiction or the matter should be transferred to the Chief Magistrate's Court.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for the orders sought regarding ownership and registration of the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi
The judge found that his close familial relationship with counsel for the plaintiff created a real danger of bias or the appearance of partiality, necessitating his recusal to uphold the principles of impartiality and public confidence in the judiciary. Furthermore, considering the value and nature of the subject land, and in accordance with statutory provisions, the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kapsabet was found to have the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute. The court therefore ordered both the recusal of the presiding judge and the transfer of the suit to the appropriate forum for hearing and determination.
Court Disposition
Suit transferred to Kapsabet Chief Magistrate’s Court; judge recused himself.
Orders
- The presiding judge recuses himself from the suit.
- The suit is transferred to Kapsabet Chief Magistrate’s Court for hearing and determination.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
Jepkemboi v Chirchir & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 654 (KLR) (18 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 654 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet
Environment & Land Case E013 of 2024
GMA Ongondo, J
February 18, 2025
Between
Lydia Jepkemboi
Plaintiff
and
Shadrack Kipkurui Chirchir
1st Defendant
Joseph Kipkoech Mutai
2nd Defendant
The Land Registrar Nandi County
3rd Defendant
Ruling
1. The instant suit has come up for pretrial directions today and counsel for the respective parties are present before the court.
2. At the outset, I have disclosed my close familial relationship with Mr David Momanyi Gichana learned counsel for the plaintiff. He is my first cousin. The disclosure is made in the spirit of, inter alia, Articles 10 (a) and (c) ,35 (1) (b) and 50 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. The said
3. Mr GIchana has affirmed his relationship with me. In the circumstances, he has expressed his intention to hand over the file to another counsel.
4. Mr D Tallam learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd defendants termed the court’s disclosure good. He proposed that in view of the value of the suit land measuring approximately one acre of land, this suit be transferred to Kapsabet Chief Magistrate’s Court for hearing and determination.
5. Mr Mulongo instructed by Ruth Rop learned counsel for the Attorney General for the 3rd defendant stated that he had limited instructions in this matter. That however, let the court to give appropriate directions.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff informed the court that he has no valuation report regarding the suit land. That the suit can be transferred as proposed by learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd defendants.
7. So, the issues that fall for determination at this stage relate to my recusal from this suit and transfer the same to another court of competent jurisdiction for hearing and determination.
8. It is noted that there is real danger of bias or impartiality if this suit proceeds before me. It is important that justice must be seen to be done; See Galaxy Paints Company Ltd-vs-Falcon Guards Ltd (1999) KLR.
9. It is noted that in the English case of Metropolitan Properties (Fg-C) Ltd-vs-Lennon and others (1969) 1 QB 577, the court laid down the threshold for recusal thus;‘……..if reasonable man would reasonably suspect bias…….’
10. In the case of Jasbir Rai & 3 others-vs-Tarlochan Singh Rai and 4 others (2013) eKLR, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kenya held that recusal would apply if there is reasonable suspicion that a fair trial was not possible.
11. The plaintiff through Momanyi Gichana and Company Advocates, commenced this suit by way of a plaint dated 3rd July 202 claiming that there is fraud, trespass and nuisance in respect of the suit land. He has sought, inter alia;a.A declaration that the Plaintiff is the beneficial and legal owner of her specified and identified portion of that parcel of land measuring 0. 7. Acres in NANDI/KAMOBO /498 as had been originally agreed between her and the 1st Defendant late father.b.The Honourable, Court be pleased to order the Land Registrar Nandi County to be compelled to transfer and register in the all that parcel of land known as NANDI/KAMOBO/7792 into the name of the Plaintiff.
12. Section 9 (a) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 2015 and section 26 of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015 (2011) empower Magistrates’ Courts to hear and determine disputes relating to environment and the use and occupation of, and title to land.
13. By the nature of the subject matter as even discerned in paragraph 11 hereinabove, the Chief Magistrate’s court at Kapsabet has jurisdiction over this suit.
14. Moreover, this court is guided by sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 5, 11, 15, 18 of the Civil Procedure Act Chapter 21 Laws of Kenya and sections 3 and of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015 (2011) herein.
15. A fortiori, I recuse myself from this suit and transfer it to Kapsabet Chief Magistrate’s court for hearing and determination.
16. It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT KAPSABET THIS 18THDAY OF FEBRUARY 2025. HON. GEORGE M A ONGONDOJUDGEPRESENT;Mr M. Gichana learned counsel for the plaintiffMr D Tallam learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd defendantsMr Mulongo learned counsel for the 3rd defendantWalter, court assistant