Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELRC 1900 (KLR)

King’uri v Unaitas Sacco Society Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E019 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1900 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 June 2025
DMD. K. Njagi Marete
863 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court refused to step aside from a case, ruling that disliking how a hearing is conducted is not proof of judicial bias.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent/Applicant in an employment claim applied on 19th December 2024 for the recusal of the court and re-allocation of the matter, alleging bias and partiality. The grievance arose from the court's direction on 3rd December 2024, made in the presence of both parties' advocates without objection, that the claim proceed by written submissions rather than viva voce evidence. The Respondent later insisted on oral evidence to cross-examine the Claimant; when the court maintained its directions, the Respondent alleged bias, invoking Article 50 of the Constitution and the Judicial Service Code of Conduct, and relying on the 'real possibility' of bias test in Tunoi v JSC (adopting Porter v Magill) and Tatu City Limited on the parties' right to determine the mode of hearing. The Claimant opposed, relying on Jan Bonde Nielsen, R v David Makali and Galaxy Paints, arguing the threshold for recusal was not met and that the application was an abuse of process aimed at delay. The court framed a sole issue: whether the Respondent had demonstrated sufficient grounds for recusal. Applying the fair-minded observer test and the principle that bare allegations of bias must be specifically alleged and proved, the court held that dissatisfaction with the court's discretion on the mode of hearing does not equate to bias, and that the alleged 'ambush' hearing date was unsubstantiated, the date having been communicated through the case tracking system with the Respondent's advocates participating fully. The application was dismissed with costs to the Claimant; the directions of 3rd December 2024 stand, the Respondent was granted 14 days to file written submissions, and mention was set for 15th July 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent demonstrated sufficient grounds for the court's recusal

Holding

The application was dismissed; no actual or apparent bias was established.

Reasoning

The Respondent's grievance arose from a procedural decision to proceed by written submissions made in the parties' presence without objection. The court retains discretion over the mode of hearing despite a party's preference. The alleged 'ambush' hearing date was communicated through the court's case tracking system and the Respondent's advocates participated fully. Bare allegations of bias must be specifically alleged and proved, which was not done.

p. 2
02

Whether insistence on written submissions over oral evidence demonstrates bias

Holding

It does not; the court's procedural discretion does not ground a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Reasoning

The directive to proceed by written submissions was issued on 3rd December 2024 in the presence of both parties' advocates with no objection raised. The Respondent's later insistence on viva voce evidence and cross-examination came after the directions were made. A party's dissatisfaction with a lawful exercise of the court's discretion on the mode of disposal is not evidence of bias.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The test for recusal is whether a reasonable, fair-minded observer would perceive a real possibility of bias, and bare allegations of bias are insufficient - the facts must be specifically alleged and proved.
  • While parties may prefer a particular mode of hearing, the court retains discretion to determine the most efficient and fair approach, and dissatisfaction with that discretion does not equate to bias.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.This court's directions on the mode of disposal of the claim made on 3rd December, 2024 stand.
  2. 2.The Respondent/Applicant is awarded fourteen (14) days to make, file and serve her written submission on the claim.
  3. 3.Mention on 15th July, 2025 for confirmation of compliance and directions of this court.
  4. 4.The costs of this application shall be borne by the Respondent/Applicant.
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 50 of the Constitution and the Judicial Service Code of Conduct (invoked by the applicant); recusal jurisdiction of the ELRC

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "King’uri v Unaitas Sacco Society Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E019 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1900 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1900/eng@2025-06-25

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