Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment

Farah & 2 others v Adan (Environment and Land Case E131 & E136 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 8394 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
2 December 2025
COChristine Ochieng
1,928 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court refused to disqualify a judge on bias claims, ruling the defendant's allegations were vague, unsupported, and apparently aimed at delaying the trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on the Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 25th September 2025 seeking the recusal of Lady Justice Christine Ochieng from a long-running land dispute over Bangkok Shopping Mall LR 36/vii/405. The Defendant, an 86-year-old litigant, alleged that the Court had been oppressive, denied him the opportunity to tender his evidence, and displayed subtle hostility favouring the Plaintiffs, who had allegedly told tenants on the suit premises to expect favourable orders from the Court. The Plaintiffs opposed, contending that the Judge had only mentioned the matter once, that the application was nearly word-for-word similar to an earlier recusal application against Lady Justice Omange dated 9th May 2025, and that the Defendant habitually filed multiple applications and complaints to the Judicial Service Commission to delay the trial while he continued collecting rent from the premises in disregard of a consent-type order of 26th April 2022 directing tenants to deposit rent in a joint interest-earning account. The court identified a single issue: whether the trial Judge should recuse herself. Applying Regulation 21(d) of the Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations, 2020, and the fair-minded and informed observer test drawn from Republic v Export Processing Zones Authority and Philip K. Tunoi v Judicial Service Commission, the court held that the Defendant had made unsupported allegations, failed to demonstrate circumstances giving rise to a real possibility of bias, and had himself sought adjournments and failed to proceed with the defence case. The application was dismissed with costs.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.whether the trial Judge should recuse herself from handling this matter

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the trial Judge should recuse herself on grounds of apparent bias

Holding

Application for recusal dismissed; the Defendant failed to discharge the burden of establishing circumstances giving rise to a real possibility of bias

Reasoning

The court applied the fair-minded and informed observer test from Republic v Export Processing Zones Authority and Philip K. Tunoi. It found the Judge had only mentioned the matter once, never denied the Defendant audience, and that the Defendant himself sought adjournments and failed to proceed with the defence case. The application was also near-identical to an earlier recusal application against Justice Omange, indicating a pattern of delaying tactics rather than genuine apprehension of bias.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A party seeking recusal for bias must specifically allege and establish facts showing that a reasonable, objective and informed person would apprehend that the judge will not bring an impartial mind to bear on the case

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 25th September 2025 is dismissed with costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

CO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction over the suit matter; application under Regulation 21(d) of the Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations, 2020 on judicial recusal

Relief refused

#

Order obligating the trial judge to disqualify and/or recuse herself from further hearing the matter

Defendant failed to meet the threshold for recusal; allegations of bias were unsupported

p. 4

Costs

Application dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs

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.

In the foregoing, I find the Notice of Motion application dated the 25th September 2025 unmerited and will dismiss it with costs.
p. 4Final orders - dismissal of recusal application
The facts constituting bias must be specifically alleged and established.
p. 3Threshold for recusal on grounds of bias
I find that the Defendant has failed to meet the threshold set down for recusal of a judicial oficer.
p. 4Failure to meet recusal threshold

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Farah & 2 others v Adan (Environment and Land Case E131 & E136 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 8394 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8394/eng@2025-12-02

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