Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC No. 145 of 2018 (Notice of Motion dated 4th March, 2020)· [2021] KEELC 4167 (KLR)

Mungai Ngaruiya v Paul Maingi Makau & 5 others [2021] KEELC 4167 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 February 2021
4,145 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~17 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court refused to disqualify a judge on bias claims, confirming that unhappiness with a court order is not grounds for recusal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 6th Defendant in a land dispute over L.R. No. 12715/11 applied by Notice of Motion dated 4th March, 2020 for the recusal of Justice Oscar A. Angote, alleging bias, gross misconduct and abuse of office. It complained that the judge granted a temporary injunction ex parte on 25th September, 2019 without hearing it, and that on 19th November, 2019, in the absence of parties, he issued orders in the nature of a mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to remove its machines from the suit property after an employee, Victor Muema, was arrested by police for trespass contrary to the injunction. The Defendant asserted it had lodged a complaint with the Judicial Service Commission and had lost confidence in the fair determination of the matters before the judge. The Plaintiff opposed, maintaining he had been the registered owner since 1988, that the injunction was properly granted and enforced, and that the Defendant's disobedience of court orders disentitled it from relief. The court applied the objective test for recusal from Kalpana Rawal v JSC and Robert Tom Martins Kibisu v Republic, holding that allegations of bias must be specifically alleged and proved on facts, not founded on apprehension or conjecture. It found the order of 19th November, 2019 was made in pursuance of the existing injunction and the court's inherent powers under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, and that grievance with an order is not a ground for recusal - the remedy being to set aside the order or appeal. The application was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court was biased in issuing the ex parte temporary injunction of 25th September, 2019 and the order of 19th November, 2019

Holding

No bias was established; the orders were made in furtherance of an existing injunction and the court's inherent powers

Reasoning

The court found there was an existing injunction restraining the 6th Defendant from trespassing, with the OCS Mlolongo directed to enforce it. The arrest of Victor Muema and the direction to remove machines were enforcement of that order, not evidence of bias. The 6th Defendant did not deny the existence of the injunction or the enforcement direction. The court acted under its inherent powers under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act.

p. 5
02

Whether the application for recusal met the objective test for disqualification of a judge

Holding

It did not; allegations were based on apprehension and conjecture rather than proved facts

Reasoning

Relying on Kalpana Rawal v JSC and Robert Tom Martins Kibisu v Republic, the court held that the applicant bears the burden of establishing facts from which a fair-minded and informed observer would infer a real possibility of bias. Mere allegation, apprehension of outcome, or grievance with orders made is insufficient.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The test for recusal of a judge on grounds of bias is objective and the facts constituting bias must be specifically alleged and established
  • A party's dissatisfaction with a court order or its manner of issuance is not a ground for recusal; the remedy lies in setting aside or appeal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the 6th Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 4th March, 2020 seeking recusal
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Plaintiff
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent powers of the Environment and Land Court under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mungai Ngaruiya v Paul Maingi Makau & 5 others [2021] KEELC 4167 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). ELC No. 145 of 2018 (Notice of Motion dated 4th March, 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/4167/eng@2021-02-26

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.