Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 18th February 2025 (arising from a suit over Njia/Cia Mwendwa/3090 and Njia/Cia Mwendwa/3460)· [2025] KEELC 3282 (KLR)

Mwenda (Suing by his Next Friend Jerusha Kanario Mwenda) v Mioro & another (Environment & Land Case E005 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3282 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
27 March 2025
6,090 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~24 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court dismissed a claim that a court officer's site visit report was biased, ruling that vague accusations without evidence or on-site objections cannot stand.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Meru (Oguttu Mboya, J) on a Notice of Motion dated 18th February 2025 by the Plaintiff/Applicant, Jerusha Kanario Mwenda, seeking to strike out a scene visit report dated 18th July 2024 prepared by the Deputy Registrar (Hon. E.W Ndegwa) pursuant to a court order of 1st July 2024, and for a fresh site visit by an independent officer, on grounds that the Deputy Registrar was biased and that her report prejudiced the applicant in respect of suit properties Njia/Cia Mwendwa/3090 and 3460. The 1st Respondent opposed, asserting the visit was conducted in the presence of all parties and advocates. The court framed two issues: whether bias/lack of impartiality was established, and whether the right to fair hearing and fair trial was breached. Applying the objective 'reasonable apprehension of bias' test as set out in Standard Chartered Financial Services v Manchester Outfitters, and the burden-of-proof principles in Dr. Samson Gwer v KEMRI, the court found the bias allegations generalized and unsubstantiated. Crucially, the applicant's advocate, Mr. Brian Mwenda, was present at the locus in quo, raised no objection, and did not swear an affidavit, justifying an adverse inference. On the second issue, the court held that the Deputy Registrar was mandated only to gather data on the status of the properties, not to conduct any hearing or trial, so no right to fair hearing under Article 50 was infringed; further, citing Kenneth Nyaga Mwige v Austin Kiguta, the report has no evidential value until formally produced and proved, and remains open to objection and cross-examination. The application was dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant/Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plea of bias and lack of impartiality against the Deputy Registrar was established

Holding

Not established; the allegations were generalized without particulars, and no objection was raised during the site visit in the presence of the applicant's advocate

Reasoning

The applicant herself sought the site visit order and its terms of reference were circumscribed by the judge to gathering data on the status of the two properties. The Deputy Registrar complied with the orders, visited in the presence of all parties and advocates, and within the set timeline. The applicant's counsel present at the locus raised no objection and did not swear an affidavit, warranting an adverse inference. Citing Standard Chartered Financial Services v Manchester Outfitters and Dr. Samson Gwer v KEMRI, the court held bias allegations require cogent proof and cannot rest on innuendo.

p. 7
02

Whether the applicant's right to fair hearing and fair trial was breached

Holding

No breach; the Deputy Registrar conducted no hearing or trial, and the report has no evidential status until proved or objected to in the course of the trial

Reasoning

The right to fair hearing can only be breached by a court or tribunal tasked to conduct a hearing or trial. The Deputy Registrar's mandate was confined to collecting data on developments, possession and occupation. The report is not an exhibit and can only be relied upon subject to objection and cross-examination, per Kenneth Nyaga Mwige v Austin Kiguta on the distinction between marking for identification and proof of documents. The allegations were therefore premature and misconceived, amounting to a red herring.

p. 11

Legal principles established

#
  • Allegations of bias against a judicial officer must be substantiated with plausible, cogent and credible evidence, not generalized assertions, and the burden lies on the applicant
  • A party who fails to object at the locus in quo through counsel, and whose counsel does not swear an affidavit, invites an adverse inference
  • A Deputy Registrar conducting a site visit under a judge's order performs a data-gathering function, not a hearing, and cannot be said to breach the right to fair hearing or fair trial

Court orders

#
  1. 1.That the Application dated 18th February 2025 be and is hereby dismissed
  2. 2.That costs of the Application be and are hereby awarded to the 1st Defendant/Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 50(1)
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 25(c)
  • Retired Constitution of KenyaSection 77(9)
  • Evidence ActSections 108 and 109
  • Universal Declaration of Human RightsArticle 10
  • International Convention on Civil and Political RightsArticle 6

Cases cited (18)

  • Christopher Odhiambo Karan vs David Ouma Ochieng
    (2018) eKLR
  • Kidero & 4 others vs Waititu and 4 others
    (2014) KESC 11 (KLR) [29th August 2019]
  • Standard Chartered Financial Services Limited & 2 others v Manchester Outfitters (Suiting Division) Limited (Now Known As King Woollen Mills Limited & 2 others
    [2016] eKLR
  • R vs Gough
    [1993] 2 All CR 724
  • Metropolitan Properties Co., Ltd v Lannon
    (1969) 1 QB 577, [1968] 3 All ER 304, [1968] 3 WLR 694
  • Webb v The Queen
    (1994) 181 CLR 41
  • R v Sussex Justices ExP. McCarthy
    [1924] 1 KB 256
  • Kimani v Kimani
    (1995-1998) 1 EA 134
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya v Prof Anyang' Nyong'o and Others
    (5/2007) [2007] EACJ 1 (6 February 2007)
  • FLS Aerospace Ltd
    [1999] EWHC B3 (Comm) (20 April 1999)
  • Dr. Samson Gwer and 5 others vs KEMRI
    (2020) eKLR
  • Raila Odinga & others v. Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & others
    Petition No. 5 of 2013
  • Shollei v Judicial Service Commission & another
    (Petition 34 of 2014) [2022] KESC 5 (KLR) (17 February 2022)
  • Evans Odhiambo Kidero & 4 others v Ferdinand Ndungu Waititu & 4 others
    SC Petition No 18 of 2014 as consolidated with Petition No 20 of 2014
  • Steel and Morris v. United Kingdom
    [2005] ECHR 103
  • Kenneth Nyaga Mwige vs Austin Kiguta & others
    (2015) eKLR
  • Des Raj Sharma -v- Reginam
    (1953) 19 EACA 310
  • Michael Hausa -v- The State
    (1994) 7-8 SCNJ 144
Jurisdiction invoked
First-instance civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit properties; the application sought review/striking out of a scene visit report ordered by the court on 1st July 2024

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mwenda (Suing by his Next Friend Jerusha Kanario Mwenda) v Mioro & another (Environment & Land Case E005 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3282 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 18th February 2025 (arising from a suit over Njia/Cia Mwendwa/3090 and Njia/Cia Mwendwa/3460). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3282/eng@2025-03-27

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