Gachungu & 23 others v Nganga & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E007 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 2133 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nyahururu judge refused to step aside from a case, ruling that vague accusations of bias without evidence are not enough to force recusal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Should this court recuse itself in this matter?
Key legal issues
#Whether the trial judge should recuse himself on allegations of bias
Application dismissed; the allegations were blanket and unsubstantiated and did not meet the objective test for recusal
The court applied the objective test from R v David Makali as reinforced in R v Jackson Mwalulu, requiring specific allegations and establishment of facts constituting bias, and the reasonable fair-minded observer test from National Oil Corporation v Real Energy. Reviewing the record, the judge had granted adjournments to both sides and no affidavit or contemporaneous objection by plaintiffs' counsel substantiated the claims of hostility or bias.
Legal principles established
#- The test for recusal is objective: there must be reasonable ground for assuming a possibility of bias likely to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the public about the fairness of the administration of justice, and facts constituting bias must be specifically alleged and established.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 26.5.2025 (the recusal notice of motion dated 16.7.2025) is dismissed with costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original trial jurisdiction (no constitutional or statutory provision expressly invoked)
Relief refused
#Recusal of the trial judge
The applicants made blanket allegations of bias without substantiation; the objective test for recusal was not met
Costs
Dismissed with costs to the respondent (1st defendant).
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.
when courts are faced with such proceedings for disqualification of a judge, it is necessary to consider whether there is reasonable ground for assuming the possibility of bias and whether it is likely to produce in the minds of the public at large a reasonable doubt about the fairness of the administration of justice
The court has to address its mind to the question as to whether a reasonable and fair minded man sitting in court and knowing all the relevant facts would have a reasonable suspicion that a fair trial for the applicant was not possible
In the circumstances, the application dated 26.5.2025 is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment dismisses 'the application dated 26.5.2025' although the recusal application before the court is described as dated 16.7.2025; the date in the final order appears to be an error
The judgment caption and case number are not stated; the matter is identified only by the application date
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gachungu & 23 others v Nganga & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E007 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 2133 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2133/eng@2026-04-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.