[2016] KEHC 2933 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's allegations of bias and abuse were unsubstantiated and that adverse rulings alone do not constitute grounds for recusal. However, in the interest of justice and due to the applicant's clear unwillingness to have his matters heard by the presiding judge, as well as his disruptive...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 2933 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Lawrence Kinyua Mwai; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: The Director, National Registration of Persons; Respondent: Director Managing Trustee, National Social Security Fund (N.S.S.F); Respondent: District Registration of Persons Nanyuki; Respondent: James Otieno, Registration of Persons Officer; Respondent: Oscar Crispus Opiyo, Registration of Persons Officer; Respondent: Christopher Muriuki Mwai
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nanyuki
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 2 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judicial Recusal
- Outcome
- Application for recusal allowed; judge recused herself from the applicant's matters.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Recusal, Judicial Bias, Court Conduct
- 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
Peter Lawrence Kinyua Mwai
Applicant
The Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
The Director, National Registration of Persons
Respondent
Director Managing Trustee, National Social Security Fund (N.S.S.F)
Respondent
District Registration of Persons Nanyuki
Respondent
James Otieno, Registration of Persons Officer
Respondent
Oscar Crispus Opiyo, Registration of Persons Officer
Respondent
Christopher Muriuki Mwai
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Judicial Recusal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judge should recuse herself from hearing the applicant's matters due to alleged bias and misconduct.
- 2 Whether the applicant's allegations of bias and abuse constitute sufficient grounds for recusal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's allegations of bias and abuse were unsubstantiated and that adverse rulings alone do not constitute grounds for recusal. However, in the interest of justice and due to the applicant's clear unwillingness to have his matters heard by the presiding judge, as well as his disruptive conduct in court, the judge determined that recusal was appropriate to preserve the integrity of the proceedings. The objections by the respondents were noted but overruled in favor of recusal to avoid further disruption and to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.
Court Disposition
Application for recusal allowed; judge recused herself from the applicant's matters.
Orders
- The judge recuses herself from hearing High Court Nanyuki Misc No. 7/15, Misc No. 2/16, and Succession Cause No. 42 of 2016.
- There shall be no order as to costs in respect of the Notice of Motion dated 26th May 2016.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NANYUKI
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2016
PETER LAWRENCE KINYUA MWAI …………...........……………..…….….…… APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL …..………………….........……..………. 1ST RESPONDENT
THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL REGISTRATION
OF PERSONS …………………………………………...…..........….……..2ND RESPONDENT
DIRECTOR MANAGING TRUSTEE,
NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY FUND (N.S.S.F) ………................…….. 3RD RESPONDENT
DISTRICT REGISTRATION OF PERSONS NANYUKI …......…...........….. 4TH RESPONDENT
JAMES OTIENO,REGISTRATION OF PERSONS OFFICER ...…............. 5TH RESPONDENT
OSCAR CRISPUS OPIYO, REGISTRATION OF PERSONS OFFICER ….6TH RESPONDENT
CHRISTOPHER MURIUKI MWAI …………………….…………..........…. 7TH RESPONDENT
RULING
1. PETER LAWRENCE KINYUA MWAI has filed a notice of motion dated 26th May 2016. This is the application under consideration in this ruling. By that application the applicant seeks that I do recuse myself from hearing not only this matter but also Nanyuki High Court Succession Cause No. 42 of 2016and Nanyuki High Court Misc No. 27 of 2015where he is a party.
2. I do not wish to reproduce the reasons that the applicant has set out in his application as the basis of my recusal. It suffices to state that the applicant has lied under oath that I abused him in open court. I am sure if I wanted to I could obtain evidence from other court users that were in attendance in court when the applicant’s matter was before me and who could confirm that I did not abuse him. What however I am clear about is that I am not in any way biased against the applicant indeed I have no basis to be biased. I have all along maintained the required judicial high standards in respect to the applicant’s matters before the court just as I do in all matters that I handle. In this regard I wish to refer to the statement made by Justice GBM Kariuki (as he then was now a court of appeal judge) in the case RPM v. PKM (2011) eKLR where the judge stated:-
“They (Judicial Officers) are required to act valiantly in preserving and using judicial power to do justice and to maintain truth. They must do that which good conscience dictates to be right upon application of the law regardless of criticisms. But they would be naïve not to expect criticisms. After all, there will always be winners and losers who will be disgruntled in litigation.”
3. The applicant began to allege that I was biased against him after I made two decisions in his matters which decisions were not in his favour. That alone cannot be a basis for seeking a judicial officer to recuse himself. In that regard I refer to the case THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC & 2 OTHERS V SOUTH AFRICAN RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION & 3 OTHERS (CASE CCT 16/98) where the court stated:
“Success or failure of the government or any other litigant is neither grounds for praise nor for condemnation of a court. What is important whether the decisions are good in law, and whether they are justifiable in relations to the reasons given for them. There is an unfortunate tendency for decisions of courts with which there is disagreement to be attacked by impugning the integrity of the judges, rather than by examining the reasons for the judgment … dissatisfaction with the outcome of a case is no justification for recklessly attacking the integrity of judicial officers.”
4. That aside it is clear that the applicant does not wish to have his cases heard by me. Accordingly and only on that ground and because of the applicant’s disruptive attitude in my court I shall recuse myself. I have considered the objections to the application by the learned counsel Mr. Makori on behalf of the 1st to the 7th Respondents and by Christopher Peter Kinyua Mwai the 8th Respondent but in my view the interest of justice demand that I recuse myself from the matters that the applicant has before the Nanyuki High Court.
5. Accordingly I order as follows:
(a) I hereby recuse myself from hearing High Court Nanyuki Misc No. 7/15, Misc No. 2/16and Succession Cause No. 42 of 2016.
(b) There shall be no order as to cost in respect of the Notice of Motion dated 26th May 2016.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2016.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
CORAM
Before Justice Mary Kasango
Court Assistant: Njue
Applicant: ……………………………….…..
Respondents: ……………………………...
For Applicant: ……………………………….
For Respondents: ………………………….
COURT
Ruling read in open court.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE