LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Fair Hearing – Foreknowledge of Facts as Disqualification
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
As to foreknowledge of the facts, no one can doubt that foreknowledge of primary facts disqualifies a Judge. However, in this case I do not think that the finding made in the Suit No. PHC/183/72 between different parties in respect of a different parcel of land as to the probability of the traditional history of one of the parties in the case is such foreknowledge of the facts as would disqualify the trial Judge from a fair trial of this case in which the sets of evidence put on scale of probability are not between the same parties.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"As to foreknowledge of the facts, no one can doubt that foreknowledge of primary facts disqualifies a Judge. However, in this case I do not think that the finding made in the Suit No. PHC/183/72 between different parties in respect of a different parcel of land as to the probability of the traditional history of one of the parties in the case is such foreknowledge of the facts as would disqualify the trial Judge from a fair trial of this case in which the sets of evidence put on scale of probability are not between the same parties."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Foreknowledge of primary facts disqualifies a judge. However, a prior finding on the probability of traditional history in a different case between different parties concerning different land does not constitute disqualifying foreknowledge. The evidence in the new case is different—different parties, different parcel, different evidentiary record. The judge’s prior conclusion on a similar issue is not foreknowledge of the facts of the new case. The judge is capable of evaluating the new evidence afresh. The principle distinguishes between knowledge of specific facts (disqualifying) and general conclusions from prior cases (not disqualifying). The test is whether the judge has pre-judged the specific facts in controversy. The same parties and same subject matter would be different.
