PRINCIPLE THAT A JUDGE MUST BE IMPARTIAL

• Date: 06 February 2019

"Of the cases referred to by Mr. Balogun, the case of Obadara and Others v. The President, Ibadan West District Grade B Court (1964) 1 All N.L.R. 336 is in our view relevant in that it has enunciated the correct position of the law. In giving the judgment of the Court, Brett, Ag. C.J.N., stated at page 344 as follows, ‘The principle that a Judge must be impartial is accepted in the jurisprudence of any civilised country and there are no grounds for holding that in this respect the law of Nigeria differs from the law of England or for hesitating to follow the English decisions. The English decisions were reviewed by the Divisional Court in Regina v. Camborne Justices (1955) 1 Q.B. 41, and we would adopt the following passage from p. 51 of the judgment as setting out the law to be applied in Nigeria: - In the judgment of this Court the right test is that presented by Blackburn J., namely, that to disqualify a person from acting in a judicial or quasi judicial capacity upon the ground of interest (other than pecuniary or proprietary) in the subject matter of the proceeding, a real likelihood of bias must be shown. This Court is further of opinion that a real likelihood of bias must be made to appear not only from the materials in fact ascertained by the party complaining, but from such further facts as he might readily have ascertained and easily verified in the course of his inquiries." The decision in Regina v. Camborne Justices, Ex parte Pearce (1955) 1 Q.B. 41 (already referred to above) together with other authorities were reviewed by Lord Denning M.R. in the more recent case of Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) v. Lannon, Ltd. (1969) 1 Q.B. 577 at 598. After reviewing the facts in the case before him, His Lordship said in respect of the law as follows: - "A man may be disqualified from sitting in a judicial capacity on one or two grounds. First, a "direct pecuniary interest:" in the subject matter. Second, "bias" in favour of one side or against the other So far as bias is concerned, it was acknowledged that there was no actual bias on the part of Mr. Lannon, and no want of good faith. But it was said that there was, albeit unconscious, a real likelihood of bias. This is a matter on which the law is not altogether clear, but I start with the often repeated saying of Lord Hewart C.J. in Rex v. Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy (1924) 1 K.B. 256 at 259:It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice...