[2021] KEHC 2485 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff's request for recusal lacked any substantive reasons and therefore did not warrant recusal. However, due to the judge's transfer from the Commercial and Tax Division and the need to prioritize an election petition with statutory time limits, the court determined that the matter...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 2485 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kinyua Koech Limited; Defendant: Equity Bank Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 229 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Referral and Recusal Request
- Outcome
- Matter referred to the Presiding Judge of the Commercial and Tax Division for reassignment; no recusal granted.
- Judges
- GL Nzioka
- Legal Topics
- Case Reconstruction, Judicial Recusal, Adjournment of Hearing, Transfer of Judge
- 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
Kinyua Koech Limited
Plaintiff
Equity Bank Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Referral and Recusal Request
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the matter should be heard by a different court upon the plaintiff's request for recusal without reasons.
- 2 Whether the reconstructed file should proceed before the current judge or be referred to another judge due to transfer and other judicial commitments.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's request for recusal lacked any substantive reasons and therefore did not warrant recusal. However, due to the judge's transfer from the Commercial and Tax Division and the need to prioritize an election petition with statutory time limits, the court determined that the matter should be referred to the Presiding Judge of the Commercial and Tax Division for further action. The court emphasized that the matter would start de novo and could be heard by any other judge in the division.
Court Disposition
Matter referred to the Presiding Judge of the Commercial and Tax Division for reassignment; no recusal granted.
Orders
- The matter is referred to the Presiding Judge of the Commercial and Tax Division for further action.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
MILIMANI COMMERCIAL AND TAX DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 229 OF 2010
KINYUA KOECH LIMITED..................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
EQUITY BANK LIMITED..................................................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The subject matter herein was filed in court and subsequently assigned to me when I joined the Commercial and Tax Division in the year 2016, to hear and determine.
2. The matter was fully heard and the decision reserved for judgment sometime at the end of the year 2019. For unknown reasons, the file was not availed to the court for writing of the decision and seems to have been forgotten.
3. However, in the months of June 2021, Hon. Stephany Wambui, Deputy Registrar, notified me that, the parties were inquiring about the judgment. I told her that, I had no physical file nor record of the same. That, the file should be traced to enable me ascertain the status thereof.
4. The file could not be traced immediately, and therefore to mitigate the delay in the matter, I directed that, in the meantime the parties reconstruct the file and I hear the matter afresh and expeditiously. I offered to hear it even during the vacation, that was approaching.
5. Indeed, the parties reconstructed the pleadings and I fixed the matter for hearing on several occasions, the same being adjourned once for inadequate notice to the defence and once due to incomplete plaintiff’s documents. The hearing dates were given immediately upon adjournment.
6. At one time, the complainant requested to be heard before 20th August 2021, as he was travelling out of the country and would be away for a considerable period of time, his request was granted. On the scheduled date, he did not join the call. The matter was adjourned. On the next hearing date, he sought for the matter to be heard before a different court. No reasons were advanced for the same, although the defence objected but left the final decision to court.
7. I have considered the request and find that, prima facie, it has no substance in the absence of the reasons thereof, and recusal in the circumstances would be unnecessary. However, in view of the fact that, subsequently, this court is hearing an Election Petition No. 1 of 2021, which should be determined within the prescribed time limits, the hearing of this matter may be delayed.
8. Furthermore, I have since been transferred from the Commercial and Tax Division of the High Court. Finally, as it were, the matter will start de novo, and therefore any other court can hear and determine it.
9. In that case I direct that, this matter be referred to the Presiding Judge of Commercial and Tax Division for further action.
It is so directed.
Dated, delivered and signed on this 22nd day of September 2021.
GRACE L. NZIOKA
JUDGE
In the presence of;
Ms Wambugu for the Plaintiff
Mr Mwenesi for the Defendant
Edwin Ombuna – Court Assistant