Supeyo & Isaac & another (Suing as the administrators of the Estate of Keziah Gathoni Supeyo) v Millenium Dream Homes Limited & 3 others
The bottom line
#A Kajiado court refused to step aside from a land dispute, ruling that normal case-management decisions are not evidence of judicial bias.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Grounds for judicial recusal under the Judicial Code of Conduct and Ethics
Only paragraph 20(1)(d) - actual bias or prejudice - was invoked; none of the eight enumerated circumstances was established on the facts
The court set out the eight circumstances in paragraph 20(1) of the Code warranting recusal and the three exceptions in sub-paragraph 3. The plaintiffs relied solely on actual bias. The court examined each deposition and found no conclusion jumped to, no hostility, and no preferential treatment of the third defendant.
Whether the court's case-management powers evidenced bias
Dismissing an adjournment, limiting submissions and not recording every word are lawful case-management functions, not bias
The court held it acted within its powers under section 1A of the Civil Procedure Act to reject an undeserved adjournment, curb irrelevancies and record the point rather than every word, consistent with the overriding objective of just, expeditious and proportionate resolution.
Whether the apprehension of bias was reasonable
The objective test from Kalpana Rawal was not satisfied; the applicant was found not well informed of court procedures
Applying the reasonable apprehension test, the court found the first plaintiff misapprehended the court's powers to record proceedings, limit submissions and issue binding directions, so no reasonable, fair-minded and informed member of the public would apprehend partiality.
Legal principles established
#- The test for recusal is objective: whether circumstances give a reasonable, fair-minded and informed member of the public an apprehension that the judge will not apply his mind impartially
- Absent valid reasons for recusal, a judge has a concomitant duty to sit
- An application for recusal is a shield, not a sword to delay or defeat the other party's hearing
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiffs' notice of motion dated May 4, 2022 seeking recusal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the defendants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the recusal application in a pending land suit
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Supeyo & Isaac & another (Suing as the administrators of the Estate of Keziah Gathoni Supeyo) v Millenium Dream Homes Limited & 3 others", Case Analysis (2022). Environment & Land Case 615 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/14907/eng@2022-11-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.