Maisha Mabati Mills Limited v Farm Auto Spares Ltd & 2 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to step aside from a land dispute, ruling that disagreeing with a judge's earlier finding is not proof of bias.
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 observations in an interlocutory ruling on reparcellation gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias warranting recusal
No. The observations were made in determining a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction; disagreement with a finding, already under appeal, is not a basis for recusal.
The court applied the objective test from the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal precedents: allegations of bias must be factual and established, and the court cannot inquire into actual bias. A party dissatisfied with an adverse or allegedly premature finding must pursue the appellate process. No personal interest, relationship, prejudice or improper conduct was attributed to the Judge, and the timing of the motion undermined the claim of apprehension.
The applicable test for judicial recusal
The test is objective: whether a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer would apprehend a real possibility of bias, based on facts alleged and established.
Drawing on Rule 21 of the Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations, 2020 and the authorities (Rai v Rai; Kibisu v Republic; Shollei v JSC), the court held that recusal requires circumstances in which impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and that the duty to sit means recusal should not be used to cripple a judge from hearing a matter.
Legal principles established
#- A finding perceived by a party as erroneous or premature does not, without more, establish that the court has prejudged the suit or is incapable of impartial determination; the appellate process is the remedy.
- Recusal is a fact-specific inquiry; allegations of bias must be factual and objectively established, and dissatisfaction with a ruling cannot ground recusal.
- Timing of a recusal application is relevant to assessing alleged apprehension of bias; unexplained delay, especially on the eve of a hearing, weighs against the applicant.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 27th April, 2026 is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, 2010; Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Recusal of Hon. Justice Oscar Angote from hearing and determining the suit
A fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude there is a real possibility of bias; no objective basis for recusal established beyond disagreement with an interlocutory finding
Direction that the matter be placed before a different Judge of the Environment and Land Court
The application was unmerited; the impugned observations were made in an interlocutory ruling and the grievance lies on appeal
Costs
The Notice of Motion dated 27th April, 2026 is dismissed with costs (costs to the Defendants/Respondents).
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.
Having considered the facts as a whole, the court finds that a fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude that there is a real possibility of bias. The Applicant has not established a sufficient basis for recusal.
In the end, the Notice of Motion dated 27 th April, 2026 is found to be unmerited and is dismissed with costs.
if every finding by a court perceived to be erroneous or adverse was sufficient to warrant recusal, a party dissatisfied with a judicial decision could effectively secure a change of Judge without establishing any objective basis for apprehending bias.
Recusal remains a fact-specific inquiry. The outcome in Esevwe does not follow merely because a party objects to a finding made in an interlocutory ruling.
Issues in the judgment
#Motion dated '27th April, 2026' but ruling challenged was delivered 13th February 2025 and appeal is Civil Appeal No. E442 of 2025; dates appear internally inconsistent with case number E192 of 2023.
Inconsistent naming of the code of conduct instrument: 'Judicial Service Code of Conduct and Ethics' versus 'Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations, 2020'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maisha Mabati Mills Limited v Farm Auto Spares Ltd & 2 others", Case Analysis (2026). ELC LC E192 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6253/eng@2026-10-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.