https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8466
The application failed on the facts alleged because the record contained no judicial directive or comment ordering a DNA exercise. However, to avoid any appearance that the Court might have assisted in procuring evidence for one side, and because the recusal threshold is concerned with perceived bias as well as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 8466 (KLR)
- Parties
- 1st Applicant: Purity Njoki Munyiri; 2nd Applicant: Patrick Mwangi Munyiri; Respondent: Jeremy Waikwa Omondi
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 3665 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause; Recusal Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion Dated 22 July 2025
- Outcome
- Application allowed; presiding judge recused himself.
- Judges
- ["HK Chemitei"]
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Recusal, Bias and Apparent Bias, Dna/paternity Evidence, Case Management and Transfer of File, Stay of Proceedings
- 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
Purity Njoki Munyiri
1st Applicant
Patrick Mwangi Munyiri
2nd Applicant
Jeremy Waikwa Omondi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause; Recusal Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion Dated 22 July 2025
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the presiding judge should recuse himself from further hearing the succession cause.
- 2 Whether there was any prior judicial directive or comment requiring a DNA exercise.
- 3 Whether the circumstances created a reasonable apprehension of bias warranting recusal.
Ratio Decidendi
The application failed on the facts alleged because the record contained no judicial directive or comment ordering a DNA exercise. However, to avoid any appearance that the Court might have assisted in procuring evidence for one side, and because the recusal threshold is concerned with perceived bias as well as actual bias, the judge allowed the application and recused himself, directing that the matter be placed before another judge for hearing and determination.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; presiding judge recused himself.
Orders
- Hon. Justice H. K. Chemitei recused himself from further hearing and determination of the succession cause.
- The file was directed to Hon. Lady Justice Onganyo for hearing and determination.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
In re Estate of Kimiti (Deceased) (Succession Cause 3665 of 2004) [2026] KEHC 8466 (KLR) (Family) (18 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8466 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Succession Cause 3665 of 2004 HK Chemitei, J June 18, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE GERALD MUNYIRI KIMITI (DECEASED) Between Purity Njoki Munyiri 1st Applicant Patrick Mwangi Munyiri 2nd Applicant and Jeremy Waikwa Omondi Respondent Ruling 1.The Applicants Notice of Motion dated 22nd July 2025 seeks orders that:(a)The honorable Justice Hilary Kiplagat Chemitei be pleased to recuse himself from further hearing and determination of these proceedings.(b)This Court be pleased to place before the presiding judge family division for relocation to a different judge for hearing and determination.(c)That all proceedings herein including the Respondent’s application dated 19th June 2025 be stayed pending the hearing and determination for this application. 2.The application is based on the Applicant’s sworn affidavit dated 22nd July 2025 and the grounds thereof. 3.The substance of the application is that this Court made some comments while the cause was ongoing to the fact that a DNA exercise be undertaken in respect to the parties herein. That subsequently thereafter the Respondent made an application dated 19th July 2025 to that effect. 4.It is her claim that the Respondent made the said application based on the directives and or comments from the Court. 5.Without belaboring the point and the issues raised in the submissions by both parties it is apparent that the record does not contain any such averments or comments by the Court. To the best of the knowledge of this Court the matter could not continue further on 26th November 2025 because the internet was failing. The Court had to adjourn to another date. 6.Subsequently the Respondent made an application to subject the parties to a DNA exercise. 7.I think the application essentially ought to fail for the simple reason that there is nowhere the Court directed the parties to undertake a DNA procedure to determine the relationship between the Objector and the rest of the parties on record so as to answer the question of the relationship between the deceased and the Objector. 8.There are plethora of decisions going into this question of recusal. The same cannot succeed unless prove of bias, interest or prejudice is be established. See Rawal V. JSC (2016) eKLR for example. 9.In my view therefore and since I do not know, assuming the application for DNA is allowed, the results of the said DNA exercise is positive or negative, it is simply necessary for the Court to recuse itself. In other words, were the application to be allowed and the results be positive then the Applicant might have a field day in concluding that this Court assisted in such a determination or procuring evidence for the other side. 10.In the premises I shall allow the application by recusing myself and since this is the presiding Court in the division, I direct that the matter be handled by Hon Lady Justice Onganyo for hearing and determination. 11.She shall as well determine the application dated 19th June 2025 and any other orders thereafter.Costs in the cause. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA VIDEO LINK AT NAIROBI THIS 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.H. K. CHEMITEIJUDGE, FCIArb.