Justice Edward Muriithi has stepped aside from a case challenging government’s planned duty-free importation of 490,000 tonnes of rice following bias claims by government lawyers.

The Kerugoya High Court judge, however, rejected the allegations of bias and dismissed the Attorney-General’s application for his recusal from the case. The court found no evidence of actual bias or conflict of interest, but ordered the file sent to the Principal Judge for allocation to another judge.

“This court takes no personal interest or property in any matter before it and it must, in the interest of securing the process of the court from any allegations of bias, allow the hearing of the dispute by another court. Let the stream of justice be seen to run pure without any suspicions of bias, however unfounded,” said the judge.

The Kerugoya Law Courts.

Photo credit: George Munene I Nation Media Group

The dispute concerns a National Treasury Gazette Notice issued on July 6, 2026, authorising duty-free importation of 490,000 metric tonnes of Grade One milled white rice. The notice allows the imports until November 30, 2026.

Kirinyaga senator Kamau Murango filed the petition challenging the government’s decision and obtained interim orders dated July 22 blocking the importation.

He argued that the supply breaches the local farmers’ right to property through resultant price drops affecting the marketability and profitability returns of their rice growing activity.

Days later, on August 5, the court dismissed the Attorney-General’s preliminary objection seeking dismissal, a suspension or transfer of the petition from Kerugoya to Kisumu. It also extended the interim orders.

On August 13, the Attorney-General filed an application asking the judge to recuse himself from the case over alleged bias against the respondents, including the Cabinet secretaries for Treasury and Agriculture, in the conduct of the proceedings.

Agriculture and Livestock Development Cabinet Secretary Mutahi Kagwe.

Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group

Agriculture Cabinet Secretary Mutahi Kagwe backed the recusal application with an affidavit, alleging that the court’s handling of the case demonstrated bias towards the petitioner.

“Having read and comprehended the totality of the proceedings and in consultation with the State Counsel on record, it is apparent that the Honourable Justice Edward M. Muriithi, Judge of the High Court sitting in Kerugoya High Court, for reasons that are not readily determinable, has in conduct of the proceedings repeatedly exhibited bias against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th respondents by favouring the petitioner,” said Mr Kagwe.

The allegations focused on interim orders preserving the status quo and the judge’s decision to consider whether the petition raised a substantial question of law requiring an expanded bench.

Mr Kagwe said the judge had extended interim orders that had lapsed, despite objections from State counsel and without hearing the respondents’ lawyers.

He also accused the judge of making prejudicial comments on certification and treating the interim orders as merited before hearing the government’s case.

But Justice Muriithi rejected those arguments, saying no actual bias had been proved through a personal interest, favouritism or conflict involving the court.

“No actual bias is proved by any personal interest of the judge in the subject matter or by actual favouritism of the one party against the other,” the judge said.

Irreversible consequences

The judge explained that duty-free imports could have consequences not easily if the petition later succeeded.

“Irreversibility is the basis of grant of conservatory orders,” Justice Muriithi said, adding that the court was concerned about the effect of imports on farm and consumer prices and rice farmers’ profitability.

The judge also rejected the suggestion that considering an expanded bench demonstrated bias. He said Article 165(4) allows the High Court to certify a matter raising a substantial question of law for hearing by at least three judges.

Rice imports — Kenya imports rice to supplement local production.

Photo credit: Pool | AFP

The issue, he said, involved competing constitutional interests, including rice farmers’ property rights, the government’s interest in food security and the rights acquired by successful recipients of import licences.

The case is part of a wider legal dispute over repeated duty-free rice importation schemes. Justice Muriithi noted that earlier petitions had challenged two other gazette notices dated July 26, 2025, and January 2, 2026.

In the earlier 2025 case, the High Court allowed phased duty-free importation, with 254,000 tonnes eventually authorised under court-controlled arrangements. The Kerugoya judge said several courts had dealt with similar importation orders.

The latest dispute has also unfolded alongside proceedings in Kisumu. On July 9, Justice Alfred Mabeya ordered the government to disclose approved importers, quantities allocated, quantities cleared, customs entries, duty exemptions, permits and the remaining quota.

Those orders followed a petition by the Ahero Rice Farmers Association, which challenged the transparency of the 490,000-tonne programme.

The association also sought Cabinet memoranda, policy papers, stakeholder consultation records, public participation records and economic impact assessments supporting the imports.

Justice Muriithi noted that parallel proceedings involving the same importation programme made consistent determination important.

“It is in the interest of all the parties concerned that the issue of the authority to issue and implement the Gazette Notice on duty-free importation of rice be judicially determined,” he said.

Read: Pressure mounts for State to pay Kwale Sugar Company Sh24 billion

The government had also filed a notice of appeal against the judge’s August 5, 2026 ruling and sought a stay of proceedings pending an intended appeal.

Despite dismissing the recusal application, Justice Muriithi said continuing with the case could leave the proceedings subject to further allegations about impartiality.

“The court finds that the application for recusal herein dated August 7, 2026 is without merit and it is dismissed. However, to the end that justice in the matter is clearly seen to be done and no imputations of bias are laid on the eventual determination of the court, this court will allow another court to deal with the matter,” he said.

He added: “Let the stream of justice be seen to run pure without any suspicions of bias, however unfounded.”

The judge ordered that the file be sent forthwith to the Principal Judge, who will allocate it to another judge. The substantive petition challenging the legality of the duty-free importation remains unresolved.

Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.

jwangui@ke.nationmedia.com