[2016] KEHC 7319 (KLR)
The court found no good reason to recuse itself from hearing the suit, as the mere refusal to hear a preliminary objection at a particular time does not amount to bias or a conflict of interest. The judge emphasized that judicial recusal must be based on substantial grounds, not on dissatisfaction with case...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 7319 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Rajni Kant Nathoo; Defendant: Edward Nthuli; Defendant: Paul Githaiga Ng'ang'a; Defendant: Ramji Manji Shamji; Defendant: Commissioner of Lands; Defendant: Hon. Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 1196 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Court Case / Ruling on Application for Recusal and Directions on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- Application for recusal declined; directions given for hearing of preliminary objection.
- Judges
- MM Gitumbi
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Recusal, Preliminary Objection, Case Management
- 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
Rajni Kant Nathoo
Plaintiff
Edward Nthuli
Defendant
Paul Githaiga Ng'ang'a
Defendant
Ramji Manji Shamji
Defendant
Commissioner of Lands
Defendant
Hon. Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Court Case / Ruling on Application for Recusal and Directions on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judge should recuse herself from hearing the suit as requested by counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants.
- 2 Whether the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on 29th October 2015 should be heard before the main suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found no good reason to recuse itself from hearing the suit, as the mere refusal to hear a preliminary objection at a particular time does not amount to bias or a conflict of interest. The judge emphasized that judicial recusal must be based on substantial grounds, not on dissatisfaction with case management decisions. However, in the interest of fairness and orderly proceedings, the court allowed the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on 29th October 2015 to be heard before the main suit. Directions were given for the filing and service of written submissions by the parties, and the matter was set for mention to confirm compliance and to set a ruling date.
Court Disposition
Application for recusal declined; directions given for hearing of preliminary objection.
Orders
- The judge declines to recuse herself from hearing the suit.
- The Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on 29th October 2015 shall be heard before the main suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
ELC. NO.1196 OF 2004
RAJNI KANT NATHOO……………............................................................................ PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
EDWARD NTHULI.…………………………………..................................……1STDEFENDANT
PAUL GITHAIGA NG’ANG’A…………………..….......................................…2ND DEFENDANT
RAMJI MANJI SHAMJI…………………………....................................…….3RD DEFENDANT
COMMISSIONER OF LANDS…………………......................................……..4TH DEFENDANT
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL……………………........................................….5TH DEFENDANT
RULING
This matter has been handled by various judges but the matter came before me for the first time on 2nd November 2015 for hearing. It is on this very first time that Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, Mr. Gichuki Kingara has requested me to recuse myself from hearing this suit on the grounds that I have declined to hear his Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on 29th October 2015.
I do not see any good reason to recuse myself from hearing this suit and so I decline to recuse myself. I will however allow for the hearing of the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on 29th October 2015 before the hearing of the main suit.
The 2nd and 3rd Defendants are directed to file and serve their written submissions within 14 days from today’s date. The other parties may file and serve their written submissions within 14 days of service.
The court shall then give a mention date for confirming compliance and to give a ruling date.
DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016.
MARY M. GITUMBI
JUDGE