1.1
The judge's impartiality principle states that the judge will not be biased when evaluating
the case. Parties to the disagreement must settle it at the expense of the opposing
party, and this is mandated ex officio. According to this theory, the judge must base his
decisions and opinions solely on the information provided by the parties to the litigation.
Evidence in accordance with the law, and shall render a decision in the matter brought
against him in line with what he determined after evaluating the evidence presented and
in compliance with the provisions of the law.
According to the independent and impartiality of the judge concept, when deciding on a
case that is before him, the judge represents both the group's viewpoint and justice
between the parties. Judges must be neutral if someone is to have a fair trial. The right
to be tried by an impartial tribunal indicates that the judges (or jurors) do not have an
interest in the outcome of a case and do not have preconceived notions about the
parties involved. Cases can only be decided "without any limitation, on the basis of the
facts and in line with the law."
Judicial impartiality—the idea that judges should interpret and implement the law
without bias and with an open mind to other points of view—is a vital component of
judicial independence. A judge should hear both sides of an argument before making a
decision in a case. This principle is at danger if judges consider their own personal
allegiances—whether they are political, religious, ethnic, or derived from any other
source—when making a decision.1
1.2
In cases where a court official has the appearance of being biased, the petitioner may
ask the judge to disqualify themselves from hearing or ruling on the case. Litigants may
also request that judges recuse themselves, generally by claiming that the judge's
actions go beyond simple religious affiliation and give the impression of bias or
prejudice.2
1.3
The test is an objective one. It's an impartial examination. The court must determine if
there is a reasonable suspicion of bias before determining whether there is a lack of
objectivity. The key question is whether a rational, unbiased, and well-informed person
1
Tsele M “Rights and religion; bias and beliefs: Can a judge speak God?” (2018) Journal for Juridical Science 3
2
Tsele M “Rights and religion; bias and beliefs: Can a judge speak God?” (2018) Journal for Juridical Science 3
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller koketsosilas. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R299,00. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
