[2021] KEELC 1002 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 1002 (KLR)

The court found that the 1st Defendant/Applicant failed to demonstrate any likelihood of bias or reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the presiding judge. The reasons advanced for recusal were deemed unsubstantiated and insufficient, as the pending applications predated the judge's involvement in the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 1002 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Job Okuna Oyugi, Douglas Odhiambo Oyugi, Joshua Onyango (as Administrators of the Estate of Hezekiah Nelson Oyugi – Deceased); Defendant: Timdhar Said Sherman; Defendant: The Commissioner of Lands
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 1517 of 1998
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Recusal of Trial Judge
Outcome
application dismissed with costs; matter to be placed before Presiding Judge for reallocation
Judges
LC Komingoi
Legal Topics
Judicial Recusal, Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Court Orders, Land Ownership Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Judicial Recusal Contempt of Court Enforcement of Court Orders Land Ownership Disputes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Job Okuna Oyugi, Douglas Odhiambo Oyugi, Joshua Onyango (as Administrators of the Estate of Hezekiah Nelson Oyugi – Deceased)

Plaintiff

Timdhar Said Sherman

Defendant

The Commissioner of Lands

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Recusal of Trial Judge

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge should recuse herself from hearing and determining all pending applications and the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Defendant/Applicant has demonstrated likelihood of bias by the court.
  3. 3 Whether the application for recusal is merited.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 1st Defendant/Applicant failed to demonstrate any likelihood of bias or reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the presiding judge. The reasons advanced for recusal were deemed unsubstantiated and insufficient, as the pending applications predated the judge's involvement in the matter and the applicant's own inaction could not be attributed to the court. The application for recusal was therefore without merit and constituted an abuse of court process. However, the judge, in the interest of justice and to avoid further allegations, refrained from adjudicating further and directed the matter to be placed before the Presiding Judge for reallocation.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs; matter to be placed before Presiding Judge for reallocation

Orders

  • The application for recusal of the trial judge is dismissed with costs.
  • The matter is to be placed before the Honourable Presiding Judge on 2nd December 2021 for purposes of reallocating to another Judge.