Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment (Environment and Land Court suit, Milimani)· [2026] KEELC 3152 (KLR)

Gitau v Kingorani Investment Limited (Environment and Land Case E015 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3152 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 May 2026
2,828 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court judge stepped aside for peace of mind, even while finding no actual evidence of bias against the litigant who asked.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff/Applicant, James Gitau Singh, a purchaser of L.R No. 214/293 Orchard Close, Off Muthaiga Road, Muthaiga, Nairobi at a public auction, moved the Court by Notice of Motion dated 24th February 2026 seeking a stay of proceedings, the recusal of the Judge from the matter, and re-allocation of the file to another Judge. He complained that the Court's conduct since 10th June 2025 - directing that the Defendant's Preliminary Objection be heard before his own application, and delaying delivery of the ruling - created a reasonable apprehension of bias. He further relied on alleged remarks by the Defendant's advocate that the judiciary would be used to stall the matter, and on a complaint lodged with the Judicial Service Commission. The Defendant opposed, arguing the application was an abuse of process and forum shopping designed to avoid an imminent ruling on a jurisdictional Preliminary Objection raising sub judice issues tied to HCCOMM E034 of 2024, Transfleet Limited v Middle East Bank Kenya Limited. The Court applied the Porter v Magill test as adopted in the Tunoi case and the Supreme Court's guidance in Jasbir Singh Rai, and found that no cogent or objective grounds of actual bias or real possibility of bias were established: the direction on sequencing was a lawful judicial determination, the delay was unlinked to any improper motive, and no nexus was shown between counsel's remarks and the Court. Nonetheless, invoking the principle that justice must be seen to be done, and noting the Applicant's deep subjective apprehension, the Court recused itself and directed that the file be placed before the Presiding Judge of the Environment and Land Court at Milimani for re-allocation. No costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant established grounds warranting recusal of the Court

Holding

The Court found no cogent or objective grounds of actual bias or real possibility of bias, but recused itself in the peculiar circumstances to preserve the perception of impartial justice.

Reasoning

The Court held that the direction to hear the Preliminary Objection first was a lawful judicial determination grounded on the principle that jurisdictional issues are decided at the earliest opportunity. The alleged delay was not linked to any improper motive, and no nexus was shown between the remarks attributed to the Defendant's counsel and the Court's conduct. The Applicant's apprehension was subjective, founded on dissatisfaction with procedural directions. Nevertheless, given the litigant's deep apprehension, the Court invoked the principle that justice must be seen to be done.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The test for recusal is whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude there was a real possibility of bias
  • Judges have a duty to sit and hear matters allocated to them unless compelling and objective reasons are demonstrated
  • Recusal may nonetheless be ordered in the interests of justice to safeguard the appearance of impartiality even where actual bias is not established

Court orders

#
  1. 1.This Court recuses itself from the further conduct of this matter
  2. 2.The file shall forthwith be placed before the Presiding Judge of the Environment and Land Court at Milimani for re-allocation to another Judge for further directions and disposal
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 10(2)(b), 48, 50 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations, 2020

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gitau v Kingorani Investment Limited (Environment and Land Case E015 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3152 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Environment and Land Court suit, Milimani). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3152/eng@2026-05-25

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