[2021] KEELC 662 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 662 (KLR)

The court found that since the judge whose recusal was sought had already been transferred from the Malindi Environment and Land Court, the application for his recusal had been overtaken by events. There was therefore no live issue for the court to determine regarding the recusal, and it would serve no purpose to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 662 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Joyce Nyokabi (Administrator of David Kamau Mwangi); Plaintiff: Timothy Chege; Defendant: Commissioner of Lands; Defendant: Land Registrar – Kilifi; Defendant: Attorney General; Defendant: Wilson Gachanja; Defendant: Alfred Chrwon; Defendant: James Raymond Njenga
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 120 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Recusal of Judge
Outcome
application for recusal declared moot; file to be transmitted for further hearing
Judges
JO Olola
Legal Topics
Judicial Recusal, Transfer of Judge, Case Management
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Judicial Recusal Transfer of Judge Case Management

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joyce Nyokabi (Administrator of David Kamau Mwangi)

Plaintiff

Timothy Chege

Plaintiff

Commissioner of Lands

Defendant

Land Registrar – Kilifi

Defendant

Attorney General

Defendant

Wilson Gachanja

Defendant

Alfred Chrwon

Defendant

James Raymond Njenga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Recusal of Judge

  1. 1 Whether the application for recusal of the presiding judge is still relevant after the judge has been transferred from the court.
  2. 2 Whether the court should make a determination on the recusal application under the changed circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that since the judge whose recusal was sought had already been transferred from the Malindi Environment and Land Court, the application for his recusal had been overtaken by events. There was therefore no live issue for the court to determine regarding the recusal, and it would serve no purpose to rule on the merits of the application. The court accordingly declined to make a determination on the recusal application and directed that the file be transmitted back to the Malindi ELC for hearing of the pending substantive application.

Court Disposition

application for recusal declared moot; file to be transmitted for further hearing

Orders

  • The application dated 8th April, 2021 for recusal is declared overtaken by events and no determination is made thereon.
  • The file is to be transmitted back to the Malindi Environment and Land Court for hearing and determination of the application dated 15th December, 2020.