‘No evidence of bias’: Judge declines to step aside in Sarah Wairimu murder trial

Wairimu had asked Justice Diana Kavedza to recuse herself on the grounds of alleged bias.

However, in a ruling delivered in court, Justice Kavedza found that no evidence had been presented to demonstrate that she had any personal interest in the matter or that the trial would be unfair.

“Having carefully considered the application, I am not persuaded that there exists bias in this matter,” the judge ruled.

The court held that the burden of proof lies with the accused person to establish claims of bias, adding that mere allegations are not sufficient to warrant recusal.

Justice Kavedza further noted that the court lacks jurisdiction to nullify ongoing proceedings in the absence of proper legal grounds.

With the dismissal of the application, the murder trial against Wairimu will now proceed before the same judge.

Sarah was re-arrested by detectives on January 2025 to face fresh murder charges against the brutal murder of Tob Cohen in 2019.

Her arrest came after the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) reviewed the murder file of the case, which had been withdrawn earlier.

In a statement to the Director of Criminal Investigations, the DPP stated that after reviewing the file, there is enough evidence to have Wairimu charged with the murder.

Sarah was first arrested in 2019 after Cohen’s body was discovered in a septic tank within their Kitisuru home.

Cohen was reported missing on July 19, 2019, before police made the bizarre discovery.

The discovery prompted police to arrest Sarah, who was then charged with the offence. She opposed the charges and applied for a constitutional review of the case.

In recent developments of the case, Sarah moved to court seeking orders to have her ongoing murder trial at the Kibera High Court declared a mistrial, citing what she describes as grave prosecutorial and judicial improprieties that have compromised her right to a fair trial.

She also wanted all rulings and orders issued so far in the matter vacated, and the trial recommenced afresh before a different judge, other than Justice Kavedza.

She held that the prosecution unlawfully uploaded a substantial portion of what it termed a committal bundle onto the court’s digital platform, an action she says is not recognised in law and amounts to an attempt to revive obsolete procedures. 

According to her, the conduct improperly exposed the trial court to evidentiary material it was not legally entitled to access, thereby undermining the court’s impartiality.