Cheruto v Paul t/a Mimshack Bales (Claim E107074 of 2025) [2026] SCC 145 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi Small Claims Court adjudicator stepped aside from a case because her past dealings with the claimant's firm could make her look biased.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether, given the adjudicator's prior professional interactions with the claimant firm, she should continue to preside over the matter or recuse herself
Key legal issues
#Whether the adjudicator should recuse herself due to prior professional interactions with the claimant firm
She recused herself, being satisfied she could act impartially but finding a reasonable perception of bias possible
The court applied the principle that justice must be seen to be done. Although the adjudicator was satisfied of her own impartiality, prior professional dealings with the claimant firm could give a fair-minded and informed observer a reasonable apprehension of bias. Transparency and integrity of proceedings required stepping aside notwithstanding the absence of actual bias.
Legal principles established
#- Recusal is warranted where circumstances may create a reasonable apprehension of bias, even absent actual bias, to preserve the appearance of impartiality
Court orders
#- 1.The adjudicator recused herself from further conduct of the matter
- 2.The file to be placed before the Head of Station on 30/7/2026 for directions on reallocation
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original adjudicative jurisdiction of the adjudicator over the claim before the court
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.
justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done
Recusal is therefore appropriate where circumstances exist that may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of a fair-minded and informed observer.
In the interests of transparency and to uphold the integrity of the adjudicative process, it is prudent that I do not continue to handle the matter. The upshot is that I hereby recuse myself from further conduct of this matter.
The file shall be placed before the Head of Station on 30/7/2026 for directions on reallocation. It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The claimant and respondent are not named in the judgment; only the claimant's identity as 'a firm' is disclosed
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cheruto v Paul t/a Mimshack Bales (Claim E107074 of 2025) [2026] SCC 145 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/145/eng@2026-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.