[2018] KEELC 2339 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 2339 (KLR)

The court found that the defendant's oral application for recusal did not meet the established jurisprudential criteria for recusal on the ground of apprehended bias. The court's prior statements were factual and cautionary, not indicative of bias, and no reasonable apprehension of bias was demonstrated. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 2339 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Sabastian Paul Muinde Kathilu (suing through his Attorney Marcella Mbithe Kathilu); Defendant: Benl Development Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
19 July 2018
Case Number
? 456 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Oral Application for Recusal and Expunging of Previous Orders
Outcome
Oral application for recusal of the judge and for expunging previous orders dismissed. File to be placed before the Presiding Judge for reallocation to another judge.
Judges
BM Eboso
Legal Topics
Judicial Recusal, Apprehended Bias, Consent Orders, Power of Attorney, Capacity of Parties
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Land and Property Judicial Recusal Apprehended Bias Consent Orders Power of Attorney Capacity of Parties

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sabastian Paul Muinde Kathilu (suing through his Attorney Marcella Mbithe Kathilu)

Plaintiff

Benl Development Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Oral Application for Recusal and Expunging of Previous Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant has satisfied the criteria for recusal of the judge on the ground of apprehended bias.
  2. 2 Whether there is a basis to expunge all previous orders made in the matter.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's oral application for recusal did not meet the established jurisprudential criteria for recusal on the ground of apprehended bias. The court's prior statements were factual and cautionary, not indicative of bias, and no reasonable apprehension of bias was demonstrated. The application to expunge previous orders was unsupported by any legal basis. Consequently, both limbs of the oral application were dismissed. However, due to repeated unwarranted attacks and complaints against the court and previous judges, the judge, on his own motion, directed that the matter be assigned to another judge to avoid further drama and maintain the integrity of the...

Court Disposition

Oral application for recusal of the judge and for expunging previous orders dismissed. File to be placed before the Presiding Judge for reallocation to another judge.

Orders

  • The oral application for recusal of the judge is dismissed.
  • The oral application to expunge all previous orders is dismissed.