LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Fair Hearing – Bias – Previous Decision by Same Judge in Different Case Between Different Parties – Effect
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
I am unable to hold that the decision in Suit No. PHC/183/72 (Exhibit 'A') affected the trial Judge's determination of the present proceedings as to lead to the conclusion that he made up his mind in advance and was unlikely to approach the present case with an open mind as to raise the question of real likelihood of bias on his part.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogwuegbu, JSC, in Kenon & Ors v. Tekam & Ors (2001) NLC-611995(SC) at p. 11; Paras A–B.
"I am unable to hold that the decision in Suit No. PHC/183/72 (Exhibit 'A') affected the trial Judge's determination of the present proceedings as to lead to the conclusion that he made up his mind in advance and was unlikely to approach the present case with an open mind as to raise the question of real likelihood of bias on his part."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A previous decision by the same judge in a different case between different parties does not automatically create bias. The party alleging bias must show that the judge made up their mind in advance and is unlikely to approach the new case with an open mind. A prior finding on a similar issue does not disqualify the judge. The judge is presumed capable of distinguishing between cases. The test is whether a reasonable observer would think there is a real likelihood of bias. Different parties and different evidence weaken any inference of bias. The judge’s previous legal conclusion or factual finding in another case is not disqualifying. The principle prevents easy disqualification of experienced judges.
