Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Mombasa (undisclosed case number in extract)· [2024] KEELC 6352 (KLR)

BOS Shipping (East Africa) Limited v Rehman & another (Environment & Land Case 121 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 6352 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
2 October 2024
5,323 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~21 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to recuse itself, struck out a late appeal extension, and ordered the losing party to pay both applications' costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This judgment of the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa (S. M. Kibunja J) determined two applications by the 2nd defendant arising from a judgment delivered on 22nd November 2023, in which general damages of Kshs 1,000,000 for trespass, a permanent injunction and declaratory orders were awarded to the plaintiff, and a subsequent taxation of costs at Kshs 4,108,006.67. By a notice of motion dated 18th April 2024, the 2nd defendant sought extension of time to file a notice of appeal lodged nine days late, and that the notice be deemed filed. The plaintiff opposed, arguing that an application to strike out the same notice of appeal was pending before the Court of Appeal in Civil Application No. E015 of 2024. By a chamber summons dated 12th July 2024, the 2nd defendant sought the judge's recusal, alleging bias in the handling of urgency certifications, stay conditions and taxation proceedings. The court framed three issues: recusal, the extension of time in light of the pending Court of Appeal application, and costs. It held that the proper exercise of judicial discretion is not evidence of bias, that the test for recusal is objective, and that the 2nd defendant had produced only unsubstantiated allegations. On the extension of time, the court deferred to the Court of Appeal, a superior court, holding it should 'down its tools' on the notice of appeal question, and struck out that application. It found the 2nd defendant the author of its own predicament for failing to seek an informal stay under Order 42 Rule 6(5) at judgment delivery. Both applications were determined against the 2nd defendant, with costs awarded to the plaintiff under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Key legal issues

#
01

Threshold for recusal of a judge

Holding

The 2nd defendant failed to demonstrate actual or perceived bias; declining to certify urgency, granting a conditional stay and clarifying orders were proper exercises of discretion, not bias.

Reasoning

The court applied the objective test from Jasbir Singh Rai and Regulation 21 of the Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations 2020. It found that a judge's exercise of discretion against a party's expectation cannot found recusal; the aggrieved party's remedy is appeal. The 2nd defendant merely alleged dissatisfaction with interlocutory outcomes without evidence of deep-rooted prejudice, so the recusal application was an intimidation tactic and was dismissed.

p. 8
02

Jurisdiction to extend time where a strike-out application on the same notice of appeal is pending in the Court of Appeal

Holding

The court declined jurisdiction, agreeing the matter should be left to the Court of Appeal, and struck out the extension-of-time application.

Reasoning

Although section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act confers power to extend time, the plaintiff had already moved the Court of Appeal (Civil Application No. E015 of 2024) to strike out the notice of appeal filed out of time. Out of deference to a superior court whose decisions bind it, the ELC held it should not determine the same question and struck out the application dated 18th April 2024.

p. 6
03

Stay of execution conditions and the 2nd defendant's own delay

Holding

The conditional stay (deposit of taxed costs within three days) was a lawful exercise of discretion; the 2nd defendant's predicament was self-inflicted by failing to seek informal stay under Order 42 Rule 6(5) at judgment delivery.

Reasoning

Order 42 Rule 6(2) makes security for due performance of the decree mandatory and its terms are for the court. The court noted counsel for the 2nd defendant was present at judgment delivery but neither requested a copy of the judgment nor an informal stay under Order 42 Rule 6(5). The failure to file a timely notice of appeal and to seek stay was the 2nd defendant's own doing, not evidence of judicial bias.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • Dissatisfaction with a judge's exercise of discretion is not prima facie evidence of bias and is not a ground for recusal; the proper remedy is appeal or review.
  • Where an application on the same notice of appeal is pending before the Court of Appeal, the subordinate court should decline to determine that question and leave it to the Court of Appeal.
  • The deposit of security under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules is mandatory and the terms of a stay of execution are for the court, not the applicant, to determine.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 2nd defendant's application dated 18th April 2024 to extend time to file the notice of appeal is struck out because the same notice of appeal is the subject of Civil Application No. E015 of 2024 pending before the Court of Appeal.
  2. 2.The 2nd defendant's application dated 12th July 2024 for recusal of the judge is dismissed for lack of merit.
  3. 3.The 2nd defendant to meet the plaintiff's costs in both applications.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A, 27
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(1), 6(2), 6(5)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 22, 50, 159
  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSection 7
  • Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations 2020Regulation 21
  • Advocate Remuneration OrderParagraph 11(1)

Cases cited (5)

  • Mike Sonko Mbuvi Gidion Kioko v Director of Public Prosecutions & 5 Others; Council of Governors & 2 Others (Interested Parties)
    [2020] eKLR
  • Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 Others v Tarlochan Singh Rai and 4 Others
  • Matata & Another v Rono & Another
    (Civil Appeal E034 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 2799 (KLR) (19 March 2024) (Ruling)
  • Joseph Maina Theuri v Gitonga Kabugi & 3 Others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Mohan Galot & 7 Others v Inspector General of the National Police Service & 4 Others; Galot Limited & 3 others (Interested Parties)
    [2021] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 27 of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Articles 22, 50 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "BOS Shipping (East Africa) Limited v Rehman & another (Environment & Land Case 121 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 6352 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELC Mombasa (undisclosed case number in extract). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6352/eng@2024-10-02

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