Soipei Ole Samperu (Suing as the Legal Personal Representative of Samperu Ole Masarie) v The District Commissioner, Transmara District & 2 Others
The bottom line
#The High Court at Kilgoris dismissed a request to disqualify the judge, ruling that a judge's remarks in an earlier judgment do not show 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 or not the application is merited and in deciding this the court shall have regard to whether the application meets the threshold for Recusal
- 2.What reliefs ought to issue
- 3.Who bears the costs of this application?
Key legal issues
#Whether the court's prior remarks in Kilgoris ELC Appeal No. E038/2024 that 'the deceased had shortchanged his brothers' created apparent bias
No bias arose; the remarks were made in the course of delivering a judgment after consideration of evidence and submissions, and cannot impute bias or predetermination
The court adopted Onguto J's holding in Kenya Properties Limited that observations limited to case management or the merits of a case do not create justifiable perceptions of bias, and that a judicial officer need not be a mute listener for fear of recusal applications. Since the impugned remarks were made in a judgment after hearing evidence, they fall outside the category of observations that leave an air of predetermination.
Whether the application met the objective test for recusal on grounds of bias
It did not; the Applicant demonstrated no actual or perceived bias, personal interest or conflict of interest, and the application rested on unsubstantiated suspicion
Applying the Supreme Court's test in Jasbir Sing Rai, impartiality is measured by the perception of a reasonable, well-informed observer who has examined the record and the law. The Applicant's dissatisfaction with the rescheduling of directions and the prior appeal judgment amounted only to unsubstantiated suspicion, which cannot suffice to disqualify the court.
Legal principles established
#- Remarks made by a judicial officer in the course of delivering a judgment after hearing evidence do not impute bias or predetermination
- Dissatisfaction with case management directions cannot, without more, constitute a valid ground for recusal
- The objective test for recusal on grounds of bias is the perception of a reasonable, well-informed and thoughtful observer who understands all the facts; unsubstantiated suspicion will not suffice
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 12th of June 2026 seeking recusal of the court and transfer of the suit to the Environment and Land Court at Migori is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents/interested parties
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- High Court's original jurisdiction over judicial review matters (ELCEPJR cause); recusal application under Rule 21(1) of the Judicial Service Commission (Code of Conduct and Ethics) 2020
Relief refused
#Recusal of the court
Applicant failed to demonstrate actual or apparent bias; remarks in prior appeal were made in the course of judgment after hearing evidence
Transfer of the suit to the Environment and Land Court at Migori
The application, being the vehicle for the transfer request, was found unmerited and dismissed in its entirety
Costs
Application dismissed with costs (costs awarded against the Applicant)
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 upshot is that the application dated 12 th of June 2026, having been found to lack merit is hereby dismissed with costs.
any dissatisfaction with the court’s direction, observations or case management cannot, without more constitute a valid ground for recusal
the remarks made in the preceding matter were made in the course of judgment after hearing of the evidence presented to court and the same cannot impute bias or a predetermination of this current matter
I do not subscribe to the faculty that a judicial officer ought to be a mute listener.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting dates for the directions listing: grounds say 10.06.2026 vs 19.06.2026, court says 16.06.2026
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Soipei Ole Samperu (Suing as the Legal Personal Representative of Samperu Ole Masarie) v The District Commissioner, Transmara District & 2 Others", Case Analysis (2026). ELCEPJR E001 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6017/eng@2026-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.