1. I have perused the application dated 6 th June 2026 which I certify to be
urgent.
2. The application seeks my recusal from hearing this matter in view of the
court’s direction in matters Judicial Review Decrees which the court
engaged specific decree holders with decrees against the City County
Government of Nairobi in structured settlement of longstanding decrees and
upon such engagement, the City County Government budgeted for and ring-
fenced funds and engaged the controller of budget to approve settlement of
over 126 decrees which were pending as at that time.
3. The petitioner herein believes that I will not be impartial in this petition. I
am no longer in the Judicial Review Division.
4. Nonetheless, the process initiated by the court is anchored in the
Constitution in Article 159 (2) (c) of the Constitution and all decree holders
embraced that fruitful process, as they had frantically sought to have the
decrees settled in vain, despite contempt orders and warrants of arrest
pending against the City County Government Chief Officer, Finance while
some were issued against the 1 st respondent herein, in their official
capacities.
5. The court exists to facilitate the process of execution of decrees of the court
and orders so that decree holders do not carry barren orders or decrees and
prolonged delays in settlement of decrees would deny them justice.
6. The petitioner herein who is not a party to those Judicial review matters
believes that this Court cannot impartially deal with the issues affecting the
respondents where the 1 st respondent has been held to be in contempt of
court in a totally different matter, unrelated to the Judicial review decrees
involving many decree holders who have benefitted from the Courts’
application of Article 159(2) (c) of the Constitution, embracing alternative
dispute resolution mechanisms to administer justice.
7. The petitioner’s assertions are far from the truth. I would deal with this
matter independent of any other influence the way I handled mandamus
decrees, in the interest of justice. However, I find no reason to insist on
handling this petition where the petitioner is apprehensive that the court
might apply the fruitful directions given in the Judicial Review matters, and
which matters the decree holders therein are enjoying the fruits of the
alternative dispute resolution process implored by this court and where over
20 decrees were settled in the first phase and over 70 others were earmarked
for settlement in the second phase.
8. I therefore recuse myself from hearing this petition and direct the file to be
placed before Hon. Lady Justice Patricia Nyaundi J, SC for further directions
on 15/6/2026 as earlier fixed
Dated, Signed and Delivered in Chambers this 8 th Day of June, 2026
R.E. ABURILI
JUDGE
urgent.
2. The application seeks my recusal from hearing this matter in view of the
court’s direction in matters Judicial Review Decrees which the court
engaged specific decree holders with decrees against the City County
Government of Nairobi in structured settlement of longstanding decrees and
upon such engagement, the City County Government budgeted for and ring-
fenced funds and engaged the controller of budget to approve settlement of
over 126 decrees which were pending as at that time.
3. The petitioner herein believes that I will not be impartial in this petition. I
am no longer in the Judicial Review Division.
4. Nonetheless, the process initiated by the court is anchored in the
Constitution in Article 159 (2) (c) of the Constitution and all decree holders
embraced that fruitful process, as they had frantically sought to have the
decrees settled in vain, despite contempt orders and warrants of arrest
pending against the City County Government Chief Officer, Finance while
some were issued against the 1 st respondent herein, in their official
capacities.
5. The court exists to facilitate the process of execution of decrees of the court
and orders so that decree holders do not carry barren orders or decrees and
prolonged delays in settlement of decrees would deny them justice.
6. The petitioner herein who is not a party to those Judicial review matters
believes that this Court cannot impartially deal with the issues affecting the
respondents where the 1 st respondent has been held to be in contempt of
court in a totally different matter, unrelated to the Judicial review decrees
involving many decree holders who have benefitted from the Courts’
application of Article 159(2) (c) of the Constitution, embracing alternative
dispute resolution mechanisms to administer justice.
7. The petitioner’s assertions are far from the truth. I would deal with this
matter independent of any other influence the way I handled mandamus
decrees, in the interest of justice. However, I find no reason to insist on
handling this petition where the petitioner is apprehensive that the court
might apply the fruitful directions given in the Judicial Review matters, and
which matters the decree holders therein are enjoying the fruits of the
alternative dispute resolution process implored by this court and where over
20 decrees were settled in the first phase and over 70 others were earmarked
for settlement in the second phase.
8. I therefore recuse myself from hearing this petition and direct the file to be
placed before Hon. Lady Justice Patricia Nyaundi J, SC for further directions
on 15/6/2026 as earlier fixed
Dated, Signed and Delivered in Chambers this 8 th Day of June, 2026
R.E. ABURILI
JUDGE