Maria Kagai Shipiri Ligaga v Prudential Africa Services Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment judge stepped aside from a case because her own lawyer represented the other side's counsel, prioritising the appearance of fairness.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether Lady Justice Hellen Wasilwa ought to recuse herself from hearing the suit on account of an advocate-client relationship between the Judge and the Claimant's counsel, J.A. Guserwa & Company Advocates
- 2.Whether the advocate-client relationship gives rise to an actual or reasonable apprehension of bias or conflict of interest
- 3.Who bears the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the subsisting advocate-client relationship between the presiding Judge and the Claimant's counsel warrants recusal
Yes. Although the Judge's integrity and competence were not questioned and the relationship rests on the right to counsel of choice, the Judge recused herself to ensure justice is seen to be done.
The court accepted that the firm of J.A. Guserwa acts for the Judge in a separate defamation suit, a fact arising before the cause was filed. It noted that the Judge's integrity or competence was not in question, given the judicial oath. Nonetheless, applying the principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, the Judge concluded that recusal was the appropriate course and allowed the application.
Legal principles established
#- A judge's oath of office requires dispensing justice without fear, favour, bias, affection, ill will, prejudice or other influence
- Every individual has the right to be represented by counsel of their own choice, including judicial officers in their personal capacity
Court orders
#- 1.The application is allowed and Lady Justice Hellen Wasilwa recuses herself from hearing the claim forthwith
- 2.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Employment & Labour Relations Court over a recusal application in a cause before it; Article 50(1) of the Constitution invoked by 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.
That being the case and in order to ensure that justice is not only done but is seen to be done, I will allow the application and respectfully recuse myself from hearing this claim forthwith. Costs in the cause.
This court does not dispute the fact that the firm of J. A Guserwa is acting for her in another suit as submitted herein. This is pegged on the right of every individual to be represented by counsel of own choice and which fact arose before this cause was filed.
I have noted that my integrity or competence is not in question in handling this matter.
Issues in the judgment
#Application dated 28th May 2026 but replying affidavit in opposition dated 24th May 2026 - earlier than the application it opposes
Submissions refer to replying affidavit sworn 29th May 2026 while the judgment records it as dated 24th May 2026
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maria Kagai Shipiri Ligaga v Prudential Africa Services Limited", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Cause No. E601 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2749/eng@2026-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.