Institution of Engineering Technology of Kenya v Kenya Rural Roads Authority & another (Petition E023 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2422 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court found no bias but stepped aside anyway, showing that judges may recuse to protect confidence in justice.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the court ought to recuse itself from further proceedings in the Petition on account of alleged bias or prejudice arising from its ruling of 27th February 2026
- 2.Whether the applicant met the threshold under Rule 21(1)(d) of the Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established actual bias or prejudice under Rule 21(1)(d) of the Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations
The court found the threshold was not met; the applicant's grievance was confined to the reasoning in the ruling of 27th February 2026, which is not evidence of bias.
The court noted that in determining the conservatory orders application the judge was obliged to assess whether a prima facie case existed, which necessarily involved evaluation of facts and law. Findings that engineers and engineering technologists were distinct cadres were judicial determinations of issues presented for consideration. Mere dissatisfaction with such findings cannot satisfy the objective recusal test; the applicant had not identified any personal, financial or institutional relationship or extraneous circumstance indicating predisposition.
Whether the court should nonetheless recuse itself to preserve the appearance of a fair hearing
Yes. Although no bias was found, the court recused itself in the interest of justice because the applicant remained convinced it could not obtain a fair hearing before the judge who had made the preliminary findings.
Following Musyoki v Kenya Airways and Thugi River Estate v National Bank of Kenya, the court accepted that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. Since the preliminary ruling had determined aspects of the petition's merit, the applicant's apprehension, though far-fetched in the court's view, could not be assuaged. Recusal and re-allocation would preserve confidence in the administration of justice, at the price of no costs order.
Legal principles established
#- A judicial officer is presumed impartial and the burden of rebutting that presumption rests on the party alleging bias, tested objectively against the reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer
- Disagreement with an adverse interlocutory ruling is not proof of bias; the proper remedy is appeal or review, not recusal
- Notwithstanding failure to demonstrate actual bias, a judge may nonetheless recuse himself or herself to preserve the appearance of justice where the litigant remains convinced justice will not be done
Court orders
#- 1.The court recuses itself from the matter in the interest of justice
- 2.The matter is referred to the Division Presiding Judge for re-allocation
- 3.No order as to costs
- 4.Mention on 22nd September 2026
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 21(1)(d) of the Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations (Legal Notice 102 of 2020) and the court's inherent jurisdiction over its own proceedings
Relief refused
#Costs of the application
The court recused itself without awarding costs to either party
Costs
No order as to costs - each party to bear own costs
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 court at the outset finds that the applicant has not met the threshold under on Rule 21 (1) (d) of the Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations (Legal Notice 102 of 2020)
A judicial officer is presumed to be impartial, and the burden rests upon the party alleging bias to rebut that presumption through cogent, credible and objective evidence.
The court recuses itself from the matter in the interest of justice and refers the matter to the Division Presiding Judge for re-allocation. I make no order as to costs. Mention on 22nd September 2026.
It is so Ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is headed 'RULING' and the document mislabels the applicant's grounds section, jumping from 'raised the following grounds in support of the application -' directly into numbered grounds without a heading
The ruling internally contradicts itself on the merits of the recusal test: it first holds the applicant has not met the Rule 21(1)(d) threshold, yet then recuses itself anyway on the ground that the applicant's apprehension could not be assuaged
Numbering of grounds/applications is inconsistent in the original (the numbering restarts, with '7.' repeated and items 8-13 following out of sequence)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Institution of Engineering Technology of Kenya v Kenya Rural Roads Authority & another (Petition E023 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2422 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC PET No. E023 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2422/eng@2026-08-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.