[2017] KEELRC 778 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 778 (KLR)

The court held that the application for recusal was unfounded and amounted to an abuse of the court process. The mere fact that Nduma J. participated in a previous bench that rendered an unfavorable decision to the applicant does not, in itself, establish bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELRC 778 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya Hotels and Allied Workers Union; Respondent: The Grand Regency Hotel; Interested Party: Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Education Institutions, Hospitals and Allied Workers (KUDHEIHA); Interested Party: The Kenya Hotel Keepers and Caterers Association
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 39 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Recusal of Judge
Outcome
application for recusal refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Recusal, Union Recognition, Collective Bargaining, Allegation of Bias
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Judicial Recusal Union Recognition Collective Bargaining Allegation of Bias

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Hotels and Allied Workers Union

Applicant

The Grand Regency Hotel

Respondent

Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Education Institutions, Hospitals and Allied Workers (KUDHEIHA)

Interested Party

The Kenya Hotel Keepers and Caterers Association

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Recusal of Judge

  1. 1 Whether Nduma J. should recuse himself from hearing the matter due to prior involvement in a related case.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's allegation of bias based on the judge's participation in Petition No. 5 of 2013 is valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application for recusal was unfounded and amounted to an abuse of the court process. The mere fact that Nduma J. participated in a previous bench that rendered an unfavorable decision to the applicant does not, in itself, establish bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court emphasized that the law on union recognition had already been settled by the superior court in Petition No. 5 of 2013, and the applicant's dissatisfaction with that outcome does not justify seeking the judge's recusal. The application was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

application for recusal refused

Orders

  • The application for recusal of Nduma J. is dismissed.