Petitioners v Land Adjudication Officer & others

The court held the ingredients of section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act must be satisfied conjunctively. The prior JR proceedings quashed a different, earlier decision and remitted the appeal for rehearing; the decision now impugned was rendered after and was distinct from the subject of the earlier suits. Though the parties may substantially be the same, the issues and decision-maker differ, so the plea of res judicata cannot defeat the petition.

The court held that a ministerial appeal proceeds like an appeal before an appellate court: the appellate body reviews the grounds of appeal, the proceedings and record of the land adjudication officer, and the applicable law. Fresh evidence may only be entertained for clarification. Relying on and reviewing the lower record is the appellate duty, not a breach of rights; the petitioners' contention that refusal to take fresh evidence violated their rights does not lie.

The court found nothing improper in delivering a decision either immediately upon conclusion of the hearing or on a reserved date. Same-day delivery does not of itself denote premeditation, bias or lack of impartiality, and Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution in fact commands expedition and timeliness in the dispensation of justice.

Bias must be pleaded and particularized, but it was raised chiefly through submissions, which cannot take the place of pleadings and evidence. Even on the particulars supplied, the petitioners adduced no clear, cogent, compelling and credible evidence of a reasonable apprehension of bias held by a fair-minded and informed observer; omnibus allegations and innuendo cannot suffice.