John Kigoi Nduati v Hellen Achieng Olima
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court refused to step aside from a case just because it had earlier ruled on a related dispute involving the same people and property.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this court should recuse itself from hearing and determining this suit
Key legal issues
#Whether prior determination of a related suit involving the same parties and property warrants recusal
No - recusal requires a Rule 21 ground or a reasonable apprehension of bias; prior judicial familiarity with a related dispute does not, without more, impair impartiality
The Defendant alleged no actual bias, personal interest or prior expression of opinion. Her only concern was possible conflicting findings. The earlier suit concerned ownership; the present suit concerns contractual obligations under a sale agreement - distinct causes of action. A fair-minded observer would not apprehend bias, and the presumption of impartiality stands.
The applicable test and legal framework for recusal
The objective test of reasonable apprehension of bias applies, grounded in Article 50(1), Article 160, Article 159(2)(a), Article 25(c) and Rule 21 of the Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations, 2020
The court traced recusal to the constitutional right to a fair hearing and judicial independence, set out Rule 21 grounds in full, and adopted the Supreme Court's guidance in Rai and Kibisu that perception of fairness is the proper test, with facts constituting bias specifically alleged and established.
Legal principles established
#- The test for recusal is objective: whether a fair-minded and informed observer would reasonably apprehend bias; mere prior handling of a related matter involving the same parties and property is not, without more, a ground for recusal
- A judge has a duty to sit and recusal should not be used to cripple a judge from hearing a matter
- Prior familiarity with parties and the dispute may assist rather than impair impartial adjudication
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 16th April 2026 seeking the Judge's recusal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Plaintiff
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; application under Sections 1A, 1B and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Regulation 21 of the Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations, 2020
Relief refused
#Recusal of Justice O. A. Angote from further proceedings in the matter
No ground under Rule 21 established; mere prior determination of a related suit involving the same parties and property does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias
Directions for another Judge to handle the matter
Follows from dismissal of the recusal prayer
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The mere fact that this court previously determined a dispute involving the same parties and property does not, without more, establish any of the grounds for recusal contemplated under Rule 21.
Accordingly, a fair-minded and informed observer, apprised of the relevant facts, would not reasonably apprehend bias on the part of this court.
In the end, the court finds the motion to be unmerited. The same is dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Chronology anomaly: judgment in ELC 364 of 2017 delivered 8 April 2025, but application dated 16 April 2026 and ruling 1 October 2026, while the suit is numbered E302 of 2025
Regulation numbering inconsistency: application cites Regulation 21 of Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations; analysis refers to 'Regulation 9 of the Judiciary Code'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John Kigoi Nduati v Hellen Achieng Olima", Case Analysis (2026). ELC LC No. E302 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6036/eng@2026-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.