[2020] KEELC 1242 (KLR)
The court found that the remarks attributed to the judge by the applicant were not on record and, even if made, could not be construed as evidence of bias or a predetermined decision. The applicant failed to provide specific, substantiated facts that would lead a reasonable, fair-minded, and informed observer to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 1242 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Export Processing Zones Authority; Respondent: National Environment Management Authority; Respondent: Water Resources Authority; Interested Party: London Distillers (K) Ltd; Interested Party: Mavoko Water & Sewerage Co; Interested Party: County Government of Machakos, Department of Environment & Natural Resources; Interested Party: Denvic Property Managers Ltd; Ex Parte Applicant: Erdermann Property Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Judgment Date
- 25 September 2020
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 2 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Recusal of Judge
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the 1st Interested Party
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Recusal, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Natural Justice, Environmental Pollution Disputes
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Republic
Applicant
Export Processing Zones Authority
Respondent
National Environment Management Authority
Respondent
Water Resources Authority
Respondent
London Distillers (K) Ltd
Interested Party
Mavoko Water & Sewerage Co
Interested Party
County Government of Machakos, Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Interested Party
Denvic Property Managers Ltd
Interested Party
Erdermann Property Limited
Ex Parte Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Recusal of Judge
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the remarks attributed to the presiding judge give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias warranting recusal.
- 2 Whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds for recusal based on the appearance of bias.
- 3 Whether the application for recusal is substantiated or amounts to an attempt to forum shop or intimidate the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the remarks attributed to the judge by the applicant were not on record and, even if made, could not be construed as evidence of bias or a predetermined decision. The applicant failed to provide specific, substantiated facts that would lead a reasonable, fair-minded, and informed observer to conclude that the judge was or would be biased. The court emphasized that recusal requires more than the applicant's subjective perception; it must be based on objective evidence of bias or reasonable apprehension thereof. The application was deemed unmeritorious, as granting it would undermine judicial independence and the administration of justice by allowing parties to seek...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the 1st Interested Party
Orders
- The application dated 30th January, 2020 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the 1st Interested Party.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment