NAIROBI, Kenya, Sep 28 – Milimani High Court Judge B.M. Musyoki has declined to recuse himself from a corruption case involving Janerose Sande Omondi, James Ambuso Omondi and two other defendants.

Justice Musyoki dismissed an application seeking his recusal, ruling that the defendants had not established sufficient grounds to warrant his withdrawal from the case.

The judge delivered the ruling on September 18, 2026, in a case filed by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC).

“I am not satisfied that the defendants have laid sufficient grounds that I ought to recuse myself from hearing or handling this matter,” Justice Musyoki said.

The defendants had sought the judge’s recusal through a notice of motion dated April 10, 2026, arguing that his handling of the case had raised concerns about their right to a fair hearing and created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

They cited several decisions and directions made during the proceedings, including the handling of hearing dates and the dismissal of an earlier application in November 2025.

The defendants specifically challenged proceedings of March 10, 2026, claiming that the court had declined to adjourn the matter despite their lawyer being engaged in other cases.

They also argued that the hearing should have been scheduled after the expected determination of two pending appeals at the Court of Appeal, which had been set for judgment on July 31, 2026.

The defendants further claimed that on November 17, 2025, the judge dismissed an application without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard.

They argued that the sequence of events demonstrated disregard for their position and raised concerns about the judge’s impartiality.

The EACC opposed the application, arguing that the defendants had not presented sufficient grounds for recusal.

The commission maintained that the court had properly exercised its discretion in dealing with the request for an adjournment and that dissatisfaction with a court decision could not, on its own, constitute grounds for recusal.

The EACC also argued that the pending appeals did not prevent the High Court from proceeding with the case because there was no order staying the proceedings.

Justice Musyoki disputed the defendants’ account of the March 10 proceedings, saying he had granted their request for an adjournment because their counsel was engaged in other matters.

He said the disagreement arose after the defence sought a hearing date beyond July 31, 2026, citing the pending appeals.

The judge said he determined that the pendency and outcome of the appeals should not affect the case before him and consequently set hearing dates for May 5 and 6, 2026.

He added that the proceedings were recorded in writing and audio, allowing anyone seeking to establish what transpired to peruse the court file or apply for the audio recording.

Justice Musyoki further held that even if the court had declined the adjournment, such a decision would have amounted to an exercise of judicial discretion and would not, without other evidence or circumstances, establish bias.

He cited previous court decisions setting out the principles applicable to applications for judicial recusal.

The judge said the test for recusal is whether an independent and fair-minded person, considering the circumstances, evidence, facts and law, would reasonably conclude that there was a possibility of bias.

He also cited a Supreme Court decision holding that disqualification becomes necessary where a reasonable person would suspect that a fair trial was not possible.

Justice Musyoki referred to Regulation 21 of the Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations, which sets out circumstances in which a judicial officer may recuse themselves where their impartiality may reasonably be questioned.

These include situations involving actual bias, a personal interest or another sufficient reason.

The judge said the rules do not require a judicial officer to recuse themselves every time a party alleges bias, noting that such applications must be determined based on the reasons advanced and the circumstances of each case.

He added that courts have a duty to manage their diaries and control proceedings to facilitate the efficient and timely disposal of cases.

In dismissing the application, Justice Musyoki said he was of the view that it may have been intended to delay the proceedings until after July 31, 2026, although he acknowledged that he could be wrong in that assessment.