In Munuma this court stated that order to succeed an applicant will have to ‘in show not only that the apprehension is that of a reasonable person but that it is also based on reasonable grounds. The requirement of reasonableness is therefore In Munuma it was pointed out that there is a distinction between ‘clear instances where the bias arises as a result of outside factors and instances where a litigant complains of the conduct of the judge during the trial and this court itself’ remarked with reference to certain authorities that the instances where bias was claimed as a result of the conduct of the judge during the trial itself, were indeed rare. In 2004 (4) Take and Save Trading CC & others v Standard Bank of SA Ltd SA 1 (SCA) at p 5 Harms JA emphasised that during a trial a by a ‘balancing act judicial officer is required because there is a thin dividing line between managing a trial and getting involved in the He expressed the view at para 4 that appeal fray’. ‘an in medias res in the event of a refusal to recuse, although legally permissible, is not available as a matter of right and it is usually not the route to follow because the balance of convenience more often than not requires that the case be brought to a conclusion at the first level and the whole case then be appealed’. The Judge of Appeal continued to state at para 5 that this approach may at first blush appear to be in conflict with the statement that a biased (or apparently biased) Judge commits irregularity in the proceedings every minute he remains ‘an on the to him this statement was contextualised in S v Khala at bench’. According
In Munuma this court stated that ‘in order to succeed an applicant will have to show not only that the apprehension is that of a reasonable person but that it is also based on reasonable grounds. The requirement of reasonableness is therefore In Munuma it was pointed out that there is a ‘clear distinction between instances where the bias arises as a result of outside factors and instances where a litigant complains of the conduct of the judge during the trial itself’ and this court remarked with reference to certain authorities that the instances where bias was claimed as a result of the conduct of the judge during the trial itself, were indeed rare. In Take and Save Trading CC & others v Standard Bank of SA Ltd 2004 (4) SA 1 (SCA) at p 5 Harms JA emphasised that during a trial a ‘balancing act by a judicial officer is required because there is a thin dividing line between managing a trial and getting involved in the fray’. He expressed the view at para 4 that ‘an appeal in medias res in the event of a refusal to recuse, although legally permissible, is not available as a matter of right and it is usually not the route to follow because the balance of convenience more often than not requires that the case be brought to a conclusion at the first level and the whole case then be appealed’. The Judge of Appeal continued to state at para 5 that this approach may at first blush appear to be in conflict with the statement that a biased (or apparently biased) Judge commits ‘an irregularity in the proceedings every minute he remains on the bench’. According to him this statement was contextualised in S v Khala at