REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT KISUMU
ELC MISC.APPLICATION NO. E018 OF 2025
HELLEN OTENGO OTANDO….……………..….........APPLICANT
VERSUS
ALOICE OWILLA HONGO…..............................RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant is well known to me. She was born in my village in Kisumu East Sub-County, Kisumu County, and got married in Kisumu West Sub-County. In addition to us being from the same village, the Applicant is a family friend and has visited me at home.
This matter came before me for the first time on 2nd April 2025, when I directed that the Applicant’s Notice of Motion application dated 25th March 2025 be served for hearing on 23rd June 2025. On 23rd June 2025, I directed that the application be heard by way of submissions. On 23rd September 2025, I fixed the matter for ruling on 17th December 2025. Having not considered the application in depth, I did not realise on the three occasions the matter came before me that the Applicant was known to me. This was because I could not recognise the Applicant with the names used in the application. I have known the Applicant over the years with her maiden name. It was not until I was going through the Applicant’s application for the purposes of writing the ruling that I realised that the Applicant is known to me.
In the circumstances, I have to recuse myself from handling this matter so that I am not accused of bias by the Respondent to the application should I rule against him.
In Accredo AG & 3 others v. Steffano Ucceli & another [2018] eKLR, the court stated as follows:
“The test for establishing real likelihood of bias has evolved over time from the point where suspicion of bias was sufficient to the reasonable man test, that is, whether a reasonable man taking into account the surrounding circumstances would conclude that there is a real likelihood or reasonable apprehension of bias. This current position was succinctly set out by the House of Lords in Porter vs. Magill [2002] 1 All ER 465 as follows:
“[T]he 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.”
Expounding on that test the Supreme Court of Canada in R. vs. S. (R.D.) (supra) had this to say:
“The test is what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically — and having thought the matter through — conclude. This test contains a two-fold objective element: the person considering the alleged bias must be reasonable and the apprehension of bias itself must also be reasonable in the circumstances of the case.”
For the foregoing reasons, I recuse myself from handling this matter. The Applicant’s Notice of Motion application dated 25th March 2025 shall be placed before Asati J. for directions and further orders.
Delivered and signed at Kisumu on this 17th day of December 2025
S. OKONG’O
JUDGE
Ruling delivered virtually through Microsoft Teams Video Conferencing Platform in the presence of:
Ms. Okaka h/b for Mr. Yogo for the Applicant
Ms. Odhong’ for the Respondent
Ms. J. Omondi-Court Assistant
| ELC NO. MISC. NO. E018 OF 2025 RULING Page 1 |