Makhanu v Nairobi County Commissioner & 7 others (Petition E074 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1868 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that a judge's routine case-management decisions, made in good faith, don't justify removing that judge from a case.
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 decisions made by the Presiding Judge in managing the case constitute a good reason for recusal
- 2.Whether the oral application for the Judge to recuse himself is justified
Key legal issues
#Whether alleged judicial bias justified recusal
The oral application to recuse was unjustified; the grounds alleged (deeming the replying affidavit filed and dispensing with the application) were misconceptions, as the directions served expeditious disposal of the main petition
The Court found that the record showed the directions were made upon the Petitioner's own request to fast-track the case and dispense with the application. The refusal of interim mandatory relief rested on legitimate factual disputes. Decisions made in good faith toward the ends of justice do not amount to bias or a good reason for recusal, and the judge equally has a duty to hear the case absent good reason.
Duty of the judge on an application to recuse
The judge bears a dual, compelling duty: to recuse where good reason is shown, and to hear and determine the case where no good reason is shown
The Court articulated the balance between the judge's obligation to withdraw upon legitimate apprehension of bias and the competing obligation to dispose of the matter where no good reason exists, applying that standard to the instant application which it found baseless.
Legal principles established
#- Case-management decisions made in good faith towards the ends of justice and expeditious hearing do not constitute good reason for a judge's recusal
- A judge has a compelling duty both to recuse where good reason is shown and to hear and determine the case where no good reason is shown
Court orders
#- 1.The oral application to recuse is declined
- 2.The case is referred to the Presiding Judge of the Judicial Review and Labour Rights Division, Nduma J. for further directions, orders and disposal thereof
- 3.Mention before Nduma J., Court No. 5 on 16th July 2025 at 9:00 am or thereafter per cause list and video link
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (petition and notice of motion dated 25th April 2025)
Relief refused
#Oral application that the Presiding Judge recuse himself
The alleged grounds of bias were misconceived; the directions were made in good faith at the Petitioner's own request and the matter had been expeditiously managed
Interim mandatory relief in terms of prayer 3 of the application dated 25th April 2025 (reinstatement of salary and allowances)
Not an obvious case for mandatory temporary relief given several factual disputes, including whether stoppage of salary was verbal, the applicable law or policy, and whether reinstatement would be proper while the Petitioner is not working
Costs
No costs order made in this ruling
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 Court holds that decisions by the Judge made in good faith towards ends of justice and expeditious hearing of the main petition do not constitute a good reason for recusal.
while the Judge has a compelling duty to recuse where a good reason is shown, the Judge also has a compelling duty to hear and determine the case where no good reason to recuse is not shown, like in the instant case. The oral application to recuse is found unjustified.
Accordingly, the Court directs and orders as follows: a. The oral application to recuse is declined.
the case is referred to the Presiding Judge of the Judicial Review and Labour Rights Division, Nduma J. for further directions, orders and disposal thereof.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the case came up under certificate of urgency on 29th April 2015 but the application considered was dated 25th April 2025, an apparent typographical inconsistency in the year
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Makhanu v Nairobi County Commissioner & 7 others (Petition E074 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1868 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1868/eng@2025-06-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.