David & 303 others v Governor, County Government of Kilifi & 2 others (Petition E003 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1066 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court ruled that unfounded suspicion of a judge's bias is not enough to force a judge to step aside from a case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the alleged personal contact between the Judge and the respondents warrants recusal
No; the only contact was at a public forum (Malindi Open Day/Court Users Committee) and a chambers consultation sought by both counsel; the test is whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there is a real possibility of bias.
The court examined the history: the chambers meeting of 27 July 2024 was sought by both counsel; the Malindi Open Day was a public judicial outreach under the STAJ strategy attended by many. The Judge confirmed the respondents were not personally known to her. Applying the cited authorities, unsubstantiated suspicion of bias cannot suffice for recusal; a fair-minded observer would find no possibility of bias.
Whether pending petitions to the JSC for the Judge's removal justify recusal
No; the mere existence of removal petitions is insufficient grounds for recusal.
The respondents argued, and the court accepted, that allowing litigants to disqualify a judge merely by filing JSC removal petitions would encourage forum shopping, undermine confidence in the administration of justice and harm the rule of law. Counsel's conduct in setting conditions before prosecuting his own application was condemned as improper and unable to ground recusal.
Whether the court should be compelled to summon the respondents before the contempt application is heard
No; due process requires the contempt application to be heard on its merits first.
Counsel for the petitioners refused to prosecute the contempt application dated 8 October 2024 unless conditions were met, including summoning the respondents. The court held that parties cannot dictate how proceedings are conducted; summoning respondents before hearing the application would condemn them unheard; an aggrieved party's remedy is appeal.
Legal principles established
#- Allegations of improper contact with a judge must be supported by evidence; unsubstantiated suspicion cannot ground recusal.
- Public judicial engagement such as Open Days and Court Users Committee meetings is an accepted judicial function and not a basis for recusal.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 4 February 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
- 2.The petitioners remain the rights-holders of the petition and shall secure a hearing date at the registry.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 25, 48, 50, 74 and 75 of the Constitution read with the Judicial Service Code of Ethics, Section 5 of the Public Officers Ethics Act, and Rules 5 and 10 (as invoked in the application dated 4 February 2025)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "David & 303 others v Governor, County Government of Kilifi & 2 others (Petition E003 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1066 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (petition pending before the ELRC, Malindi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1066/eng@2025-04-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.