(recusal) lies the very concept of judicial independence. In either way the casu decision goes, eyebrows will be raised on the ruling by either party or the public given the nature and magnitude of accusations traded between the state and the defence counsel for the 1st accused which has spilled to the bench… Given the circumstances, a decision which represents the true interests of justice can only be achieved by another independent and impartial (so to speak) judicial officer.” On 1 March 2012 the magistrate forwarded record of proceedings to High Court with the request that it be placed before a judge for quashing of proceedings so that fresh proceedings could commence before another magistrate. When the referral came to the notice of the appellant’s legal practitioner, she filed an application in the High Court for review of the same proceedings on the ground that there was no real and substantial justice. In the application she went on to allege that the appellant had been placed on remand on false information contained in Form 242. She placed documents to show that the allegations were not supported by evidence. She also went further to ask the reviewing judge to determine the legality of the order of remand. She then sent a letter to the Registrar of the High Court for the attention of the reviewing judge in which she alleged that referral by the Magistrate for quashing of proceedings was unlawful. She said the appellant had not been heard before the decision to recuse himself by the magistrate was made. The court dismissed the application on 23 a quo May 2012. As already indicated there was no misdirection on the part of the learned judge on the question of the validity of the grounds on which the application was based. It is clear that the learned judge would not have had the power to consider whether there were grounds
(recusal) lies the very concept of judicial independence. In casu either way the decision goes, eyebrows will be raised on the ruling by either party or the public given the nature and magnitude of accusations traded between the state and the defence counsel for the 1st accused which has spilled to the bench… Given the circumstances, a decision which represents the true interests of justice can only be achieved by another independent and impartial (so to speak) judicial officer.” On 1 March 2012 the magistrate forwarded record of proceedings to High Court with the request that it be placed before a judge for quashing of proceedings so that fresh proceedings could commence before another magistrate. When the referral came to the notice of the appellant’s legal practitioner, she filed an application in the High Court for review of the same proceedings on the ground that there was no real and substantial justice. In the application she went on to allege that the appellant had been placed on remand on false information contained in Form 242. She placed documents to show that the allegations were not supported by evidence. She also went further to ask the reviewing judge to determine the legality of the order of remand. She then sent a letter to the Registrar of the High Court for the attention of the reviewing judge in which she alleged that referral by the Magistrate for quashing of proceedings was unlawful. She said the appellant had not been heard before the decision to recuse himself by the magistrate was made. The court a quo dismissed the application on 23 May 2012. As already indicated there was no misdirection on the part of the learned judge on the question of the validity of the grounds on which the application was based. It is clear that the learned judge would not have had the power to consider whether there were grounds
SC-55-13%20MUTANDA%20VS%20THE%20STATE%20%26%20ANOTHER.docx