Specified Offices Defined Contribution Pension Fund v Thahane (CONSTITUTIONAL CASE 10 of 15) [2016] LSHC 10 (26 July 2016)

Specified Offices Defined Contribution Pension Fund v Thahane (CONSTITUTIONAL CASE 10 of 15) [2016] LSHC 10 (26 July 2016)

There is no realistic possibility that the outcome of the constitutional challenge would affect the judges’ interests or benefits in the pension fund, and prior expression of opinion by a judge in a different context does not warrant recusal. The application fails to meet the legal threshold for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Citation
[2016] LSHC 10
Parties
Applicant: Specified Offices Defined Contribution Pension Fund; Respondent: Timothy Thahane
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
26 July 2016
Case Number
CONSTITUTIONAL CASE 10 of 15
Procedural Posture
Recusal Application (interlocutory) / Ruling on Recusal Application Prior to Hearing Main Constitutional Challenge
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Recusal of Judges, Apprehension of Bias, Judicial Impartiality
Source Language
English
Judicial Ethics Constitutional Law Recusal of Judges Apprehension of Bias Judicial Impartiality

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Specified Offices Defined Contribution Pension Fund

Applicant

Timothy Thahane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Recusal Application (interlocutory) / Ruling on Recusal Application Prior to Hearing Main Constitutional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the panel of judges should recuse themselves due to alleged bias arising from their membership in the applicant pension fund and prior expression of opinion by one judge.

Ratio Decidendi

There is no realistic possibility that the outcome of the constitutional challenge would affect the judges’ interests or benefits in the pension fund, and prior expression of opinion by a judge in a different context does not warrant recusal. The application fails to meet the legal threshold for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for recusal is dismissed.
  • There will be no order as to costs.