Republic v Njoka & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E001 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 838 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court refused to disqualify a judge from a land dispute, ruling that asking for recusal is not enough—real evidence of bias is required.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a reasonable apprehension of bias was established against the judge
The application for recusal was dismissed; no actual or apparent bias was demonstrated. The remarks in Lady Justice Omollo's ruling were obiter dictum and did not bind this court, and the judge had made no determination in the matter.
The court found that the grounds relied upon - comments in a prior ruling and case management directions - did not demonstrate bias to a fair-minded and informed observer. The applicant's real grievance was the outcome of a related matter, Nakuru ELC JR No. 1 of 2024, which is not a ground for recusal. The court emphasised the duty to sit and warned against litigants bullying judges into recusal.
The test and legal framework for recusal
The applicable test is that of the fair-minded and informed observer, applied alongside Rule 21 of the Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations, 2020, the Bangalore Principles and the doctrine of the duty to sit.
The court set out Rule 21's enumerated circumstances for recusal, none of which the applicant established. It cited the Court of Appeal in Philip K. Tunoi and Kalpana Rawal on the objective test, and endorsed the doctrine of the duty to sit from Gladys Boss Shollei, noting judicial officers should not succumb to intimidation.
Legal principles established
#- A judge has a duty to sit and should not recuse himself merely because recusal is raised or because it would be more convenient; recusal requires proper grounds and a reasonable apprehension of bias perceived by a fair-minded and informed observer.
- A judge should not recuse simply because a party raises the issue, as this would encourage forum shopping.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for recusal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application are awarded against the applicant (costs in the cause was sought but the court dismissed with costs)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Rule 21 of the Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations, 2020
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Njoka & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E001 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 838 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 22nd November 2024 in Nakuru ELC Judicial Review Application. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/838/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.