Elizabeth Irako Shiakamiri v National Council for Persons With Disabilities [2015] KEELRC 172 (KLR)
- Court
- Employment & Labour Relations Court
- Case number
- 172
- Citation
- [2015] KEELRC 172 (KLR)
- Decided
- 6 November 2015
Summary at a glance
TypeLabor DisputePostureAppeal from a decision of the Employment and Labour Relations CourtCoramAbuodha J. N.
The respondent's accusations are not credible and reasonable grounds for recusal.
Facts
The claimant, Elizabeth Irako Shiakamiri, moved to court to stop a disciplinary process initiated by the respondent, National Council for Persons with Disabilities, due to her refusal to proceed on transfer. The respondent accused the claimant's counsel and a judge of displaying partiality and open bias.
Issues
- Whether the respondent's accusations against the claimant's counsel and the judge constitute credible and reasonable grounds for recusal.
- Whether the respondent's accusations against the claimant's counsel and the judge constitute credible and reasonable grounds for recusal.
Reasoning
The respondent's accusations are baseless and spurious, and do not constitute credible and reasonable accusations against the claimant's counsel and the judge to warrant recusal.
Outcome
The respondent's accusations are not credible and reasonable grounds for recusal.
Orders
- The order of the Court made on 29th July, 2015 concerning the hearing and determination of the applications dated 26th June, 2015 and the one dated 21st July, 2015 will remain in force.
- The respondent is further directed to comply with the order of the Court made on 29th June, 2015 if not already in default. The claimant shall be at liberty to commence contempt proceedings against the respondent's responsible officers.
Remedies
- The respondent is directed to comply with the order of the Court made on 29th June, 2015 if not already in default.
- The claimant shall be at liberty to commence contempt proceedings against the respondent's responsible officers.
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Loading judgment…