Matipe v Murunya & 6 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8664 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Narok judge recused herself from a land dispute so it could be heard elsewhere, stressing that unhappy parties should appeal rather than seek recusal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the presiding judge should recuse herself on grounds of bias arising from the ruling of 5th June 2025
Although the court found the allegations unfounded and the applicant's proper remedy was an appeal, it nonetheless recused itself so that justice would be seen to be done
The court set out the law on recusal: the test is the real possibility of bias to a fair-minded and informed observer; recusal must rest on specific, cogently proved grounds; the party alleging the judge's decision was wrong should appeal. The applicant's complaint was a perception born of the 5th June 2025 ruling and he had already filed a Notice of Appeal. However, noting this is a one-judge station and that the applicant's apprehension concerned the court hearing a fresh application seeking the same prayers already dismissed, the court found it prudent to recuse itself and transfer the matter to another ELC station.
Whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents were in contempt of the orders of 3rd May 2024
Not determined at this stage; the applicant chose to address only the recusal prayer contrary to directions, and the contempt application stands transferred with the main Petition
The application had several prayers including declarations of contempt and committal, but the court had directed that all prayers be canvassed by written submissions while the applicant argued only prayer No. 3 for recusal. The contempt allegations, the admissibility of photographs and proof of disobedience were contested by the Respondents and remain for determination by the court to which the file is transferred.
Legal principles established
#- The standard for recusal is whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there was a real possibility of bias; a party who contends a judge's decision was wrong should appeal, not seek recusal
- Judges have a duty to sit and recusal must be based on cogent evidence, not mere perception or speculation
- Contempt of court requires proof to a high standard since liberty is at stake
Court orders
#- 1.The court recuses itself from the matter
- 2.The matter and file to be referred to the Presiding Judge of the Environment and Land Court sitting in Milimani Environment and Land Court to allocate the suit to another Judge for hearing and determination of the application dated 24th July 2025 and the main Petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5 of the Judicature Act and Rules 81.4 and 81.10 of Part 81 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules, 2012 (England and Wales) on contempt; Article 50 of the Constitution (fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal) invoked by the applicant
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Gitau v Kingorani Investment Limited (Environment and Land Case E015 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3152 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 3152 (KLR)25 May 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Matipe v Murunya & 6 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8664 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Petition concerning land parcel Cis Mara/Oletukat/674). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8664/eng@2025-12-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.