LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Fair Hearing — Judge Deciding on Evidence Heard by Another Judge — Infringement of Fair Hearing Principle
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is unlawful and incompetent for one judge to decide on evidence heard by another judge; such a practice infringes the principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Eghobamien v. Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria (2002) NLC-1191997(SC) at pp. 9–10; Paras E–A.
"It is unlawful and incompetent for one Judge to decide on the evidence heard by another Judge. For that to happen is an infringement of the principle that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The principle that justice must be seen to be done requires that the judge who decides the case must have heard the evidence. A judge who did not hear the evidence cannot competently decide the case. The practice violates fair hearing rights. The appearance of justice is as important as the reality. A party is entitled to have their case decided by the judge who observed the witnesses. The rule applies to both criminal and civil proceedings. The decision is a nullity. The principle reinforces the requirement that the decision-maker must be the one who assessed credibility. The remedy is a fresh hearing before a different judge.