Kasigau Ranching (DA) Company Limited v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum & Mining & 3 others; Ngilorit (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 159 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 3312 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Mombasa dismissed a litigant's bid to set aside hearing rulings and force a judge's recusal, ruling that losing an adjournment is not bias.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court should recuse itself for alleged bias and coercion
Recusal refused; an objective observer would not find bias. Hearing dates were fixed six months earlier in the presence of the applicant's counsel, and she volunteered to proceed in counsel's absence.
The court applied Regulation 21 of the Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations 2020 and the objective test from Jasbir Singh Rai and Joseph Maina Theuri. Refusal of an adjournment is an exercise of judicial discretion, not a ground for recusal; litigants cannot equate adverse interlocutory rulings with bias. Leave to appeal against the rulings had already been granted, which was the proper remedy.
Whether the rulings and proceedings of 17th and 18th October 2023 should be set aside or varied
No sufficient cause shown; the proceedings were conducted fairly and setting them aside would waste judicial time.
The hearing date had been taken six months earlier in the presence of the applicant's counsel, who stayed away without explanation. The applicant cross-examined DW1 and later testified before her new counsel. The court exercised its discretion under Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 12 Rule 7 to further the overriding objective of just and expeditious disposal, and declined to undo orders made in exercise of that discretion.
Who bears the costs of the application
Costs to the plaintiff and interested party under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The application was dismissed as lacking merit, and the plaintiff and interested party successfully opposed it; costs follow the event unless the court orders otherwise for good cause.
Legal principles established
#- A party cannot seek recusal of a judge merely because an interlocutory discretion went against them; the test for recusal is objective.
- The right to be heard carries a corresponding duty to attend on scheduled hearing dates and assist the court under Section 1A of the Civil Procedure Act.
- A litigant's right to appoint additional counsel at any stage must not cause further delay in finalisation of the matter.
Court orders
#- 1.The 4th defendant's/applicant's application dated the 27th November 2023 is without merit, and is hereby dismissed in its entirety.
- 2.The 4th defendant/applicant to pay costs to the plaintiff and interested party.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1, 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 39, 40, 47, 48, 50, 60, 64, 159, 162, 165, 169, 258, 259 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Order 22 Rule 22, Order 40, Order 45, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kasigau Ranching (DA) Company Limited v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum & Mining & 3 others; Ngilorit (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 159 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 3312 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). not_stated_in_judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/3312/eng@2024-04-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.