By ADEN KIPRUTO
A wave of applications seeking the recusal of judges handling disputes involving the Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET) has emerged at the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC), with litigants asking four different judges to step aside over what they describe as a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The applications, filed in Nairobi, Nakuru and Meru, target Justices James Rika, Jacob Gakeri, Jemima Keli and Stella Ruto, with the applicants arguing that the cumulative effect of previous rulings, judicial conduct and alleged procedural decisions has eroded their confidence in the courts’ impartiality.
Although each application arises from a different dispute, they are united by a common argument that the applicants fear they may not receive a fair hearing as guaranteed under Article 50(1) of the Constitution. The respondents and the judicial officers named in the applications have not responded to the allegations in the material made available, and none of the claims has been determined by the courts.
In the latest development, five teachers have asked the ELRC in Nakuru to remove Justice James Rika from Petition No. E008 of 2024, arguing that his judgment created a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The application has been filed by the second petitioner, William Lengoyiap, on behalf of fellow petitioners Paul Kipchumba Rotich, Robert Miano, Peter Oluoch and Jentrix Ogolla.
The petition names the Teachers Service Commission (TSC), the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), the Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT), KUPPET and the Chief Executive Officer of the Teachers Service Commission as respondents.
The petitioners want Justice Rika to disqualify himself from any further proceedings and have the matter placed before the Principal Judge for reassignment to another judicial officer.
In a supporting affidavit, Lengoyiap claims the court determined issues relating to payroll deductions that were not pleaded by the petitioners despite payslips forming part of the evidence. He further alleges that the court misapprehended Article 22 of the Constitution by treating the dispute as a trade union matter instead of a constitutional petition brought by individual teachers.
The petitioners also contend that the court failed to identify the issues for determination, introduced a court reference number that did not appear in the pleadings, and overlooked material evidence, including correspondence which they say was intended to pressure them into withdrawing the petition.
They further argue that although the judgment cited Sections 20 and 21 of the Employment Act concerning itemised payslips, it failed to reconcile those provisions with what they describe as undisputed omissions regarding beneficiaries of salary deductions.
“I honestly and reasonably believe that a fair-minded and informed observer would apprehend bias, and that I am unlikely to receive an impartial hearing before the same judge,” Lengoyiap states in his affidavit.
The petitioners maintain that their application is intended to safeguard public confidence in the administration of justice and is not motivated by personal hostility towards the judge.
A separate application has also been lodged against Justice Jacob Gakeri in Constitutional Petition No. E019 of 2025, where 17 petitioners seek his recusal from a constitutional challenge to KUPPET’s leadership and amendments to the union’s constitution.
The petitioners are led by Moffat Okisai, Peter Omondi Oluoch, Paul Rotich, Paul Kimeto, Robert Miano, Mary Rotich, Moses Kimwere, Charles Ngeno, Yvonne Mutindi Musyoka, William Lengoyiap and seven others.
The respondents include KUPPET National Chairman Moses Nthurima, Secretary-General and Emuhaya MP Omboko Milemba, the Registrar of Trade Unions and the Cabinet Secretary for Labour and Social Protection.
In their application, the petitioners accuse Justice Gakeri of demonstrating bias in several matters involving KUPPET, arguing that his conduct has created a reasonable apprehension that they will not receive a fair hearing.
They claim the judge stayed proceedings in an earlier petition pending determination of another case filed later, an action they contend violated constitutional guarantees on access to justice, expeditious disposal of cases and the right to a fair hearing.
The petitioners further argue that Justice Gakeri failed to consolidate related matters under Rule 61 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Rules, a decision they claim unfairly favoured KUPPET.
They also challenge his ruling in Nairobi ELRC Petition No. E104 of 2026, in which he struck out a petition challenging amendments to the KUPPET constitution after finding it barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
According to the petitioners, the doctrine was wrongly applied because the parties in the two cases were not identical and the earlier matter had largely been determined on jurisdictional grounds.
The applicants further allege that Justice Gakeri ignored submissions questioning provisions of the Labour Relations Act referring to the defunct Industrial Court and made remarks suggesting judges had discussed how to handle KUPPET cases, which they say raises concerns over judicial neutrality.
They also cite several previous decisions made in favour of KUPPET and refer to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission’s 2025 National Gender and Corruption Survey, arguing that public confidence requires judicial officers to avoid even the appearance of bias.
Another recusal application has been filed by Ronald Kiprotich Tonui against Justice Jemima Keli in the long-running Petition No. 28 of 2016 involving KUPPET.
Tonui asks the ELRC in Nairobi to remove Justice Keli from the matter, stay a ruling scheduled for August 20, 2026, and allow the cross-examination of KUPPET Secretary-General Maurice Akelo Misori before any ruling is delivered.
He argues that Article 50(1) of the Constitution guarantees every litigant the right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial court.
According to court documents, Tonui contends that Justice Keli has previously delivered rulings in matters involving KUPPET touching on issues central to the pending petition, thereby creating what he describes as a reasonable apprehension that the judge has already formed an opinion on issues yet to be determined.
He also claims that some of the judge’s previous decisions departed from the constitutional requirement that courts administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities and alleges that relevant documents were declined admission into evidence.
Tonui further argues that cross-examining Misori would help clarify issues surrounding a disputed consent order forming part of the litigation.
In his supporting affidavit, he references several previous KUPPET disputes involving branch elections, deployment of union officials, constitutional petitions and judicial review proceedings, saying the cumulative effect of those rulings has undermined his confidence in the court’s impartiality.
He insists the application has been filed in good faith to protect public confidence in the administration of justice rather than delay the proceedings.
In a certificate of urgency, Tonui says the recusal application should be determined before the scheduled ruling date because proceeding with the judgment first would effectively render the application pointless and prejudice his constitutional right to a fair hearing.
Meanwhile, William Lengoyiap has separately asked the ELRC in Meru to remove Justice Stella Ruto from Judicial Review Application No. E001 of 2026 involving KUPPET Secretary-General, KUPPET and the Registrar of Trade Unions.
Lengoyiap wants the matter transferred to another judge, arguing that his apprehension of bias is reasonable and would be shared by a fair-minded and informed observer.
According to the application, Justice Ruto had previously recused herself from Nairobi ELRC Cause No. E671 of 2025 after stating that she personally knew one of the respondents and had previously worked for the Teachers Service Commission, where she interacted with KUPPET national officials.
Lengoyiap argues that it is inconsistent for the judge to later preside over matters involving the same parties and institutions after previously stepping aside.
He also cites several of Justice Ruto’s decisions involving KUPPET disputes, including cases relating to the sale of a Machakos branch vehicle, Murang’a branch leadership, Laikipia branch elections and a Samburu election dispute.
The applicant alleges that some of those decisions relied on unsigned documents, failed to properly apply the law or produced outcomes favouring particular parties.
He further claims that some former KUPPET branch officials involved in the disputes were politically aligned to National Treasurer Wicks Mwethi Njenga, whom he alleges has a personal relationship with the judge.
Lengoyiap also refers to provisions of the Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations dealing with judicial independence, impartiality, integrity, equality and conflict of interest, as well as the EACC’s 2025 corruption survey, arguing that public confidence in the judiciary requires the matter to be heard by another judge.
All four applications remain pending before the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
The allegations contained in the applications are claims made by the respective applicants. None has been determined by the court, and the judges concerned, KUPPET and the other respondents had not filed responses in the material made available.
