By Andrew Kariuki
The High Court has dismissed an application by murder suspect Sarah Wairimu seeking to have the trial judge recuse herself from presiding over the case involving the death of Dutch businessman Tob Cohen.
In a ruling delivered on February 26, 2026, Justice Diana Kavedza found that there was no evidence to support allegations of bias raised by the accused, allowing the trial to continue before her.
“Having carefully considered the application, I am not persuaded that there exists bias in this matter,” the judge ruled.
Wairimu had moved to court arguing that the judge ought to step aside, claiming that her right to a fair trial had been compromised. She alleged that the conduct of the proceedings, including actions by the prosecution, had undermined the impartiality of the court.
However, Justice Kavedza held that the burden of proving bias lies with the party making the allegation, noting that mere claims without supporting evidence are insufficient to warrant recusal.
The court further stated that it lacked jurisdiction to nullify ongoing proceedings in the absence of proper legal grounds.
With the application dismissed, the murder trial will proceed before the same judge at the High Court.
Wairimu is accused of murdering her husband, Tob Cohen, whose body was discovered in a septic tank at their Kitisuru home in September 2019 after he had been reported missing for several weeks.
She was initially arrested and charged following the discovery, but the case later took several legal turns, including a constitutional challenge that saw proceedings halted.
In January 2025, detectives re-arrested Wairimu after the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions reviewed the case and determined that there was sufficient evidence to reinstate the murder charge.
The renewed prosecution has since been ongoing at the High Court.
In her latest application, Wairimu had sought to have the trial declared a mistrial, arguing that there had been serious prosecutorial and judicial improprieties that infringed on her right to a fair hearing.
She also sought orders to have all prior rulings vacated and the case restarted before a different judge.
Part of her complaint centered on the prosecution’s alleged uploading of a committal bundle onto the court’s digital platform, which she argued is not recognised in law and exposed the court to evidentiary material it should not have accessed at that stage.
