Accredo Ag & 3 others v Steffano Ucceli & 1 other
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that losing before the same judges previously is not proof of bias, so recusal applications need strong evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a prior adverse judgment by the same bench gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias
No. An adverse decision in a previous appeal between the same parties, even if it rendered the suit nugatory and even if an appeal to the Supreme Court is intended, does not establish bias.
The court reasoned that the right to an impartial tribunal is a subset of fair hearing rights, but the presumption of impartiality arising from the judicial oath is high. The applicants set out chronology but failed to identify circumstances giving rise to apprehension of bias, and produced nothing to support the claim that the first appeal judgment was rendered outside the confines of the law.
The applicable test and threshold for recusal based on perceived bias
The test is the reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer test; allegations of bias must be established through cogent evidence to a high threshold.
The court traced the evolution of the bias test from mere suspicion to the reasonable apprehension standard in Porter v Magill and R. v S. (R.D.), and applied Galaxy Paints and Kaplana H. Rawal, holding that recusal applications are warranted on own motion or by application only where impartiality is genuinely in question.
Legal principles established
#- The threshold for a finding of real likelihood of bias warranting recusal is high, and a presumption of impartiality attaches to judicial officers by virtue of their oath of office; an adverse ruling against a litigant does not establish bias.
- Allegations of perceived judicial bias must be supported by cogent evidence measured against the fair-minded and informed observer test.
- Judicial officers should not readily accede to recusal applications not founded on reasonable grounds, as this would encourage bench-shopping by litigants.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for recusal of the bench is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondents
- On appeal from
- High Court
- H.C.C.C No. 118 of 2009
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over the pending appeal from the High Court; the application sought recusal of the bench seized of that appeal
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Accredo Ag & 3 others v Steffano Ucceli & 1 other", Case Analysis (2018). Civil Appeal (Application) No. 43 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/89/eng@2018-12-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.