[2018] KEHC 5495 (KLR)
The judge determined that, having previously handled a similar dispute and delivered a ruling on related issues, there existed a risk of approaching the present matter with a predetermined mindset. This could compromise the perception and reality of impartiality required in judicial proceedings. To safeguard the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 5495 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: John Mithamo Wasusana; Defendant: Ndima Tea Factory Company Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 232 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Pre Ruling; Directions on Recusal
- Outcome
- Matter deferred to another judge; current judge recused himself.
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Recusal, Conflict of Interest, Case Assignment
- 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
John Mithamo Wasusana
Plaintiff
Ndima Tea Factory Company Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Pre Ruling; Directions on Recusal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the presiding judge should recuse himself due to prior handling of a similar dispute involving related issues.
- 2 Whether proceeding to rule would compromise the parties' right to an impartial hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
The judge determined that, having previously handled a similar dispute and delivered a ruling on related issues, there existed a risk of approaching the present matter with a predetermined mindset. This could compromise the perception and reality of impartiality required in judicial proceedings. To safeguard the parties' right to an unbiased determination and to avoid the appearance of bias, the judge found it necessary to recuse himself and defer the matter to another judge for ruling based on the material on record.
Court Disposition
Matter deferred to another judge; current judge recused himself.
Orders
- The matter is deferred to any other judge in the Division to write the ruling based on the material on record.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPULIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 232 OF 2016
JOHN MITHAMO WASUSANA.............................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
NDIMA TEA FACTORY COMPANY LTD....DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
DIRECTIONS
The ruling of this case was to be delivered today. However when I retired to prepare the ruling, it transpired that I have in the past handled a similar dispute between different parties, this being Civil Case No. 106 of 2017, Stephen Maina Githiga v Kiru Tea Factory Company Ltd and Others, and on14th December,2017 delivered a ruling relating thereto.
In that ruling ,this court addressed issues that may be in one way or another a reflection of the dispute between the parties in the present case. If I were to proceed and write a ruling in this matter, I would be citing my own decision which has been referred to by counsel for the respondent.
In that case, I feel conflicted because I will be approaching the dispute with a fixed mind. The parties in the circumstances would be denied the opportunity or benefit of another view other than of this court. I feel constrained therefore to defer this matter to any other Judge in the Division to write the ruling based on the material on record.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 21st Day of June, 2018.
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE