Nyaga & another v Njeru & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E020 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4423 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Embu dismissed a bid to have the judge step aside, confirming that unhappiness with a procedural ruling is not evidence of bias.
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 Plaintiffs have established sufficient grounds to warrant the recusal of this Court from further conduct of these proceedings
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court's handling of the Defendants' late-filed sale agreement and the remarks attributed to it created a reasonable apprehension of bias
No. The Court sustained the objection and directed a formal application, ensuring determination through proper procedure after hearing both parties; the complaints disclosed no actual or apparent bias.
The Court reviewed the record: on 04/02/2026 the objection to the late sale agreement was sustained and the Defendants were directed to regularize by formal application; on 24/02/2026 the Plaintiffs' counsel indicated non-opposition and sought time to file a further affidavit, which was accommodated. The Court relied on the fair-minded and informed observer test (Porter v Magill as adopted in Kenyan authority) and on Regulation 47 of the Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations requiring specific, reasonable grounds. Dissatisfaction with procedural handling is remediable by review or appeal, not recusal.
The applicable test and grounds for recusal of a judicial officer
The test is the impression given to reasonable people - the fair-minded and informed observer standard - and actual bias requires automatic disqualification, while apparent bias depends on conduct giving rise to a real possibility of bias.
Drawing on Charity Muthoni Gitabi v Joseph Gichangi Gitabi, Philip K. Tunoi v JSC, Kaplana H. Rawal v JSC and Isatu v Dalacha, the Court restated the recusal framework: Regulation 21 grounds (personal interest, actual bias, prior counsel, etc.), the Tunoi/Rawal exposition that actual bias mandates recusal whereas apparent-bias cases turn on the objective impression, and Regulation 47 requiring specific and reasonable grounds rather than generalized complaints.
Legal principles established
#- The test for apparent bias is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude there is a real possibility that the tribunal was biased
- Recusal requires specific and reasonable grounds; mere dissatisfaction with a court's procedural rulings or misunderstanding of the law is insufficient
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 13/03/2026 seeking recusal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application are awarded to the Defendants
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court to determine recusal applications in proceedings before it (Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations, Regulation 47, cited)
Relief refused
#Recusal of the Judge from further conduct of the proceedings
The circumstances complained of disclosed neither actual bias nor a reasonable apprehension of bias; the Court merely directed a formal application to regularize the late-filed document
Referral to the Presiding Judge for reallocation to another Judge
Follows automatically from dismissal of the recusal prayer
Judicial notice of / call for the record of proceedings of 04/02/2026 and 24/02/2026
Not granted; the Court instead considered the record as it stood
Costs of the application in the cause
Costs were instead awarded to the Defendants
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the Defendants
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.
Having considered the record, I am not persuaded that the circumstances complained of disclose actual bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias.
It is also settled that if a party considers that the Court has misapplied the law or exercised its discretion improperly, the law provides appropriate remedies through review or appeal.
The question is whether the fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.
Consequently I find no merit in the application dated 13/03/2026. It is hereby dismissed with costs to the Defendants.
Issues in the judgment
#Pagination is internally inconsistent: the final page is labelled 'Page 12 of 10', and the body text shows 'Page 11 of 10', indicating a drafting/typographical error in the judgment's pagination.
A typographical error appears in the quoted Rawal passage ('trial y an independent and impartial court'), apparent in the official text.
The suit number under which the application was brought is not stated anywhere in the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyaga & another v Njeru & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E020 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4423 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 13/03/2026 (suit number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4423/eng@2026-07-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.