[2022] KEELRC 13199 (KLR)
The court found that the grounds advanced by the petitioner for recusal were speculative and not supported by factual evidence. The assignment of files to judges is an administrative function performed by the registrar, not by the judges themselves, and does not in itself raise a reasonable apprehension of bias. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELRC 13199 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenya Universities Staff Union- Kenyatta University Branch; Respondent: Kenyatta University; Respondent: Chairperson University Council Kenyatta University; Respondent: Vice-Chancellor Kenyatta University
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition E082 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Recusal Application / Ruling on Application for Recusal of Judge
- Outcome
- application for recusal declined
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Recusal, Union Disputes, Judicial Bias Allegations
- 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
Kenya Universities Staff Union- Kenyatta University Branch
Applicant
Kenyatta University
Respondent
Chairperson University Council Kenyatta University
Respondent
Vice-Chancellor Kenyatta University
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Recusal Application / Ruling on Application for Recusal of Judge
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grounds advanced by the petitioner justify the recusal of the presiding judge.
- 2 Whether the assignment of files to judges raises a reasonable apprehension of bias.
- 3 Whether speculative allegations without factual basis can warrant judicial recusal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the grounds advanced by the petitioner for recusal were speculative and not supported by factual evidence. The assignment of files to judges is an administrative function performed by the registrar, not by the judges themselves, and does not in itself raise a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court emphasized that judges are constitutionally and legally obligated to hear and determine matters before them unless there are compelling reasons to recuse themselves. Since no factual or substantive basis for recusal was established, the application was declined.
Court Disposition
application for recusal declined
Orders
- The application by the petitioner asking the court to recuse itself is declined.
- Cost of the application to be paid by the petitioners.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Kenya Universities Staff Union- Kenyatta University Branch v Kenyatta University & 2 others (Petition E082 of 2020) [2022] KEELRC 13199 (KLR) (4 November 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEELRC 13199 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Petition E082 of 2020
J Rika, J
November 4, 2022
Between
Kenya Universities Staff Union- Kenyatta University Branch
Claimant
and
Kenyatta University
1st Respondent
Chairperson University Council Kenyatta University
2nd Respondent
Vice-Chancellor Kenyatta University
3rd Respondent
Ruling
1. This court would like to assure Mr Omondi and the union he represents, that it has no association whatsoever with the gentleman he identifies as Prof Paul Wainaina.
2. It is also important for the petitioners to know that files are not assigned to the respective judges, by the judges themselves. They are normally assigned to judges by the office of the registrar.
3. Matters are likely to be heard on interlocutory application, by different courts.
4. If a ruling has been made, which litigants are dissatisfied with, it is open for the litigants to go on appeal to the relevant superior jurisdiction, rather than apply for recusal of the judge.
5. Judges have an obligation under the Constitution and the law to hear and determine matters placed before them.
6. There are no good grounds submitted by the petitioner for recusal of this court. The grounds advanced by Mr Omondi are not factual. They are speculative and cannot warrant recusal.
It is ordered: -a.The application by the petitioner asking the court to recuse itself is declined.b.Cost of the application to be paid by the petitioners.
DATED, SIGNED AND RELEASED THE PARTIES ELECTRONICALLY, UNDER THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND JUDICIARY COVID-19 GUIDELINES, AT NAIROBI, THIS 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022. JAMES RIKAJUDGE