Namisi v County Government of Trans Nzoia & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 79 of 2015) [2026] KEELC 1276 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Grounds and test for judicial recusal
Recusal is discretionary and governed by Rule 21 of the Judicial Service Code of Conduct & Ethics Regulations 2020; the applicant must show a real likelihood of bias assessed through the eyes of a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer, not mere suspicion.
The court traced the law from Rule 21 of the Code and the authorities including Jasbir Singh Rai v Tarlochan Singh Rai, Rawal v Judicial Service Commission and Attorney General v Professor Nyong'o, holding that apprehension of bias must be objectively reasonable and grounded in correct facts. Alleged disparaging remarks, losing a previous suit and unparticularized comments do not meet the threshold, particularly where no contemporaneous objection was recorded.
Evidential foundation for a recusal application
The applicant failed to cite the impugned words, attach proceedings, or show any objection on the record; the deponents lacked proven instructions, undermining the affidavit's probative value.
The court examined its own record of the three hearings and found no objection by any defendant or counsel to the conduct of proceedings, no formal application founded on the alleged Court of Appeal consent, and no settlement agreement placed before it. The advocate deponent did not state who instructed him, and the 4th defendant purported to speak for other defendants without authority.
Abuse of recusal applications as judge-shopping
Recusal applications filed late and with ulterior motives of selecting a favourable judicial officer are improper and will be refused.
Relying on Tuff Bitumen Limited v SBM Bank (Kenya) Limited and Dobbs v Triodos Bank NV, the court noted the danger that litigants would choose their judges by criticizing all others if recusal followed mere criticism. The application was filed on the eve of a consent-taken hearing date, over three months after the alleged events, supporting an inference of delay tactics in a 10-year-old suit.
Legal principles established
#- The test for recusal is the apprehension of bias in the mind of a reasonable, objective and informed observer based on correct facts, and a mere suspicion is insufficient.
- A judge has a duty to sit and should not recuse merely because a litigant criticizes the court; recusal applications must not be used as tactical devices.
- An affidavit sworn by an advocate or a co-defendant without instructions or authority from the party whose fair-hearing rights are engaged has weak probative value.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 11/11/2025 seeking stay of proceedings and recusal of the court is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the plaintiff/respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; Rule 21 of the Judicial Service Code of Conduct & Ethics Regulations 2020; Articles 10, 27, 73(2)(b), 23, 50 and 159 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Namisi v County Government of Trans Nzoia & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 79 of 2015) [2026] KEELC 1276 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Ruling in the suit before the court (application dated 11/11/2025); related matter Kitale ELC No. 74 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1276/eng@2026-03-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.