in this lecture we shall discuss natural justice specifically we shall discuss the nemo [Music] of natural justice the nemo judex in course as well rule of natural justice the nemo judex in course as well is also referred to as the rule against bias it is a rule that a judge must not be a judge in its own course it is a rule that says that the judge must be impartial and acts without bias it is a rule that says that a decision maker should not have a financial interest or petunia interest or a relational interest or a proprietary interest in the subject matter of the decision that he is about to participate in the making of the decision in respect of so that is the rule against bias in other words every judge is adjudicating upon a matter and it comes to light that the god has any form of interests in the cause or matter the judge must recuse or decline to take part in the making of the decision if the dad participates in the making of the decision then the whole decision becomes null and void so that is nemo judex in course as well but the judge must not be a judge in his own course this rule is so important that if a judge has an interest in the outcome of a matter and he participates in the education of on the mata the whole decision becomes null and void the whole decision becomes known and void so we have mentioned clearly that a god must not have an interest in the outcome of the matter but the question is what are the kinds of interests that a judge that when a dad has in the outcome of a matter the guard must decline jurisdiction what are the categories of interest that's if it's established that a judge has that nature of interest in the outcome of a matter then that must recuse himself and not participate in the decision-making process the first example is a pecuniary or financial interest in the outcome of the matter so the rule is that if a judge has any form of pecuniary interests in the outcome of a matter however small that strategic interest may be that judge will be disqualified from acting as a member of it of that particular family regardless of how small the peculiar interest in it would disqualify a judge from deciding the matter even though it may not even be proved that his decision was in any way affected all that is important is that remember justice must not only be seen to have been done but must be seen to have a manifestly done therefore regardless of the small interest you have in the outcome of the matter we shall ensure that you decline jurisdiction in respect of the matter it is important for you to bear in mind that there's no requirement for it to be established that the judge was in any way influenced by that veterinary interest all that is important is that as soon as you have any preliminary interests you are supposed to decline jurisdiction regardless of how small subpac interest may be so the first case we shall use to demonstrate this is the case of dimes versus grand junction canal this decision is dated as far back as in 1852 so dimes versus grand junction canal is reported in 1852 3 hlc at page 759 now in this case the chief justice lord cottingham lord cottonham had shares in a company and he had granted that company was a party to a suit and lord cottonham had participated in the hearing and made some others in that particular suit and the question arose as to whether the fact that he had a peculiar interest in health sales in that particular company was sufficient to render the decision null and void now it is important to note that the person in this case was the law chancellor and definitely even if he has any financial interest in the company how much influence can that small money or shares have on his influence but the question has sold a reason about whether we can crush the whole decision based on the fact that the law chancellor had some chest in the company this is what lord campbell held in the case he had healed that no one can suppose that lord cottonham could be in the remoter's degree influenced by the interest that he had in this consent but my loss it is of the last importance that the magazine the new man is to be a judge in his own course should be held sacred and that it is not to be confined to a cause or matter in which he is a person but applies to a course in which he has an interest since i have had the honor to be chief justice of the court of the queen's bench we have again and again set aside proceedings in inferior tribunals because an individual who had an interest in the course took part in the decision and it will have a most salutary influence on these tribunals when it is known that this caught that this high court of last resorts in the case in which the lord chancellor of england had an interest considered that his degree was on that account a decree not according to law and was set aside this will be a lesson to all inferior tribunals to take care not only that in their decrees they are not influenced by personal interests but to avoid the appearance of laboring under search and influence so it is clear from dimes and grand junction that even a casing with the lord chancellor of england participated in and had an interest in they went as far as holding that the decision is supposed to be null and void and this case of diamonds and band dancing is dated as far back as in the year 1852 i should tell you how long this principle of nemo judex in kosaswa has been held as past of the common law now apart from the case of dimes versus grand junction canal another case that is very instructive on peculiar interests is the case of from united brewers company [Music] versus birth justices this case is reported in 1926 appeals cases page 586 specifically at page 590. and this is what this count cave observed at the same price and i quote my lords if there is one principle which forms an integral part of the english law it says that every member of a body engaged in the judicial proceeding must be able to act judicially and it has been held over and over again that if a member of such a body is subject to bias whether financial or other in favor of or against either party to the disputes or is in such a position that a bias must be assumed he ought not to take part in the decision or even to sit upon the tribunal so we have seen again in this case of from united brewers company there's birth justices that as soon as a person has an interest in any case that person is not supposed to participate by sitting in the tribunal to take part in a decision-making process and then also is the ghanian case of atani genoa versus and you see this in the second volume of jandal and divots at page 487 you'll notice that in this case the majority view of the supreme court was that peculiar interest pecuniary or proprietary interest however small in the subject matter of a dispute disqualifies a dash so we have seen three cases that have all held that if the dad has any form of pecuniary interests he's not supposed to participate in the decision-making process we've seen the case of dimes versus ban junction canal we have seen the case of from united brewers company versus bath distances and we have seen the case of attorney general salah they all maintain the same position that if you have any peculiar interest in the outcome of the matter no matter how small it is you should not participate in the decision-making process so patinary interest is one of the ways in which a judge will be deemed to be a judge in his own course another example circumstance underwood ajax will be deemed to be a judge in his own course is when the judge has predetermined the issue it means that when a mata comes before you as a judge you are not supposed to predetermine the issue when you have not had the benefit of looking at the entire evidence of record before you can arrive at a conclusion judicially so if you are a judge and the matter comes before you and even when the parties have not even said anything you tell one person that you i will make sure that you go to prison on this particular matter now that statement made by the judge amongst the fact that he has even predetermined the issue already he has already made up his mind on how he's going to adjudicate upon the case in other words no matter what you do no matter the evidence you bring you have already predetermined the issue so it will not be right for them but to allow that particular girl to adjudicate upon that particular case because he has predetermined the issue and if he goes ahead to adjudicate upon that case he is going to be biased he is going to advocate upon his own course it means that when a mata comes before a judge that is supposed to approach the issue with an open mind and rely on only the evidence that at the child and he should not enter into the arena of conflict and on this i refer you to the case of republic versus high courts the ex party aggressive i was with a second reported in 2003 2004 supreme court of dynamo reports at page 864 i refer you to the number one and then number two of these cases all reported in 2003 2004 supreme court of ghana law efforts republic there's a higher court the next party i've been saying to the second number one and number three reported in 2003 2004 supreme court on the reports that case you will see how the supreme court held that a decision maker should approach the seat of justice with an open mind and not enter into the arena of conflict you see in that case that if a decision maker has fallen knowledge of the facts and he's showing that he has already made up his mind it should be uncomfortable by us and the job will be made to recuse himself from hearing the case so you've seen veterinary interests we've seen predetermination of the issue the next one is appeals appeals it means that if you are hijacked and he sits in the high courts and you have adjudicated upon a particular matter and at the time that the case comes before the court of appeal you you were part of the judges who had a kid at the childhood you are not supposed to participate in that period because it means that you you go and then you'll be adjudication upon the case that you yourself you have already adjudicated that so appeals the rule is that a decision maker should not be made a part of his own appeal and on this the case of quest versus one train and others reported in 1961 the nalo reports page very instructive quest is called q-u-i-s-t versus pointering k-w-a-n-t-r-e-n-g and others reported in 1961 ghana more reports up to 605 and this is what the courts held in holding one before i deal with the holding it is important to give a brief of the facts as captured in the headlines so that we can situate the holding in a better perspective now the facts that can be gathered from the head notes as follows but the suit between the parties came before early new day in 1958 the judge indicated that he knew the family of the parties very well and he offered to settle the defeats he then adjourned the case to be taken before another judge so that the parties could use his services if they so desired the parties apparently were not interested in a settlement rather the case was discontinued and a fresh rate found in the local course for substantially the same release day did not see the parties again not hear anything about the matter and so the present appeal came before him the plaintiff responded objected to his yearning the appeal on the ground that's in view of the offer he made to settle the earlier suits it is improper for him to hear the appeal and this is what the court held in holding one the fact that a dad has tried to promote reconciliation between parties and has failed is not enough to make it improper for him to hear the case between the same parties otherwise there will be no point in the provisions in section 84 and 85 of the court acts of 1960 ca9 make direct officers of the courts including judges to encourage and firstly takes the settlement in an americable way without reports to litigation matters indifference between the practices nor is the fact that a child knows one or other of the offices nor is the fact that a child knows one or other of the parties reason why he should be debunked from hearing their case if it weren't so very few cases can be heard my dad is born and bred in ghana so the court in the case of quest encountering is saying that the fact that only earlier advised the parties to try settlements does not preclude him from being a judge in the matter and further the fact that a god knows the family involved does not preclude a judge from here in the matter because in that way so only few judges will be able to adjudicate upon cases in ghana and i think i agree with the language because think about it in ghana for example when the only faculty while at a time was legal for a very long time it means that all the judges that's who end up being judges in ghana would have definitely gone through the faculty of law there were no people in the faculty they would know the lectures and so if the letters appear before them and they say that because they know them then they are not they are going to be by us saying that the mere fact that you know somebody who is a party in the case is not sufficient to say that you refuse from hearing the case this is the case of quests versus quanturine and others 1961 ghana law reports at page 605 so so far we have seen ways a number of ways in which a god can be deemed to be a guide in his own course we have nothing continually or financial interests we adopted pre-determination of the issue we have dealt with appeals that the judge should not be a part of his own appeal and we have also dealt with the fact that a judge is not supposed to have full knowledge of the facts it means that if you are a judge and then you already have full knowledge of the fact of the case when the matter comes before you you are not supposed to be allowed to adjudicate upon the matter so assuming you already know about the case maybe you were even there when the people were even fighting you saw all of that he saw how this person points this person and then all that and they have brought the case before you by verity of the fact that you have full knowledge of the facts you are not supposed to participate in the education of the matter that would be you is that you're likely to be prejudiced because of the things that you already know about the case already so far knowledge of the facts includes a jab from adjudicating upon the case it will create bias and the case that are used to explain this is a case of juan reported in 1959 ghana reports at page 269 this case lays down the position that full knowledge of the mayor in a particular area of law will not mean that you are likely to be by us that's the the rule of natural justice says that you should not have full knowledge of the facts of the case before you it doesn't say that you shouldn't have full knowledge of the law and the case is coming with the screen these are the facts of the key besides when the matter came before the court one of the lawyers argued that one of the judges only that he was having an online day before coming to adjudicate upon that particular matter when he was a lawyer and he practiced as a lawyer he was well-versed with issues concerning the allah and he had even appeared as counsel previously in cases that concerned the osu anatomy students and because of that the council for the plaintiff argued that because when he was a lawyer done cases concerning the allah and he had even appeared as lawyer for two different people concerning lands about the allah takata student only muji should not be allowed to participate in the end of the case because according to the lawyer that amounted to full knowledge of the facts which must have influenced his judgment and that's it is not only necessary that justice has been done but it must be manifestly be seen shall be done so on that basis he was trying to impugn the diamonds and this is the holding of the hearts that can be found in holding six and seven of the headlocks and a quote that before the decision of a judge can be impugned on the ground of possibility of bias there must be substantial grounds in support of such possibility bare possibility and near suspension are not enough now the fact that only new day went at the bar was specially well acquainted with the allah and the law relating to it and appeared as counsel in two cases involving submatters did not amount to substantial possibility of bikes since the parties were not the same parties nor the land this land nor was he previously aware of the facts in the instant case this is the case of k-w-a-m-i that is quaino it's just q-u-a-y-n-o-r 1959 general reports that if you have full knowledge of the fact of the case before you when it is the same parties the same facts before you that one it can be a ground for you to refuse yourself but when it is not the same parties and you only have fun on it of the law that's one will not be again so we have gone through different ways in which a judge can be deemed to be a doubt in his own course they have done pecuniary interests or financial interests once that is proved you must recuse and decline jurisdiction they have shown that if you have predetermined the issue you must accuse and decline jurisdiction we are shown that if you were the one who had the main case and the appeal has come before you you must recuse and decline jurisdiction we have shown that if you have full knowledge of the facts it must be accused and declined jurisdiction i mean now the next question is this when a party alleges bias on the part of a judge what is the test what is the test that the court must be satisfied with in holding that a particular guard is being biased now the answer to this question is that when you are led by us against a particular dutch the test is that you must be able to establish a real likelihood of bias and not mere suspicion that a judge is going to be biased so a mere suspension of bias however reasonable that suspicion may be will not be sufficient what you must prove is a real likelihood of bias and the authority for this position can be found in at least three cases in ghana the cases are republic versus constitutional committee chairman expertise the second in another reported in 1968 ghana law reports at page one zero five zero this is the case of republic versus constitutional committee chairman ex-party byroman ii and another 1968 general reports acted 1050 you can also see this position in the case of republic versus high courts you see this 2003 2004 supreme court of ghana law reports on page 864. that says that the test is real likely to buy us a number suspicion and also the case of attorney general and someone attorney general and salah reported in the second edition the second volume of jandal and difference at page 487 these three cases ex party as we see the second s party barometer attorney general and salah they all laid down the rule that the test of bias is that there must be a real likelihood of bias and not mere suspicion and the person who has the evidential building to prove the real liking of the bias is the one who is alleging the bias against the particular dash now in order to make a strong case to let you better appreciate this test of real life load of bias it would be good to walk through at least two of these cases and i'll begin with the case of ex party barima case of republic this is consistent committee chairman expertise and another 1968 demolo report at the 1050. these are the facts of the case as coming gathered from the headless the applicants applied for orders of certain rari and prohibition to crash certain orders and rulings made by a constitutional committee enquiring into these two main charges referred against the advanced sehani the application was grounded under alleged bias and interest of the chairman of the committee as well as his ending quotes complete disregard for the fundamental conditions of the administration of justice in his affidavit supporting the application the applicant deposed that one the respondent's wife was related to the people whose complaints resulted in the appointment of the committee and number two that the respondent was intimately involved in the two main charges and had made efforts to settle the matter and three the decisions and conduct of the respondents as chairman of the committee showed that he was interested in the diffuse and was biased against the applicants so all the applicant is saying that he has appeared before the constitutional committee that acquired into the two main charges preferred against the dancing and he's saying that the chairman of the committee chairman of the committee he's saying that he's making the case of bias against the chairman of the committee and the basis of the allegations of buyers against the chairman of the committee and that's one the chairman's wife was related to the people whose complaints resulted in the appointment of the committee now the chairman's wife was intimately involved in the human charges and had even made a force to settle the matter and that the decisions and conduct of the chairman showed that he was interested in the disputes and was biased against the applicants that is why the applicant has bought this use of republic versus constitutional committee chairman ex-party barryman the second and another 1968 gunner law report at paid 1057 he's saying that based on this the whole decision should be crushed this is the holding of the courts more than one as i'm regarded from the headwaters and i quote to succeed in these applications the applicants must show the existence of a real likelihood of bias or interest on the part of the chairman a mere suspicion of bias however reasonable might appear was not sufficient the applicants did not seek to establish that a respondent had a pecuniary or proprietary interest in the matter in disputes he could not succeed without satisfying the courts that the respondent's interest in the proceedings was so real and substantial and also and later has to give rise to a real likelihood of bias the test of bias in this respect was objective and it was the view that a right-minded person would take if he accepted the matters of facts put forward by the applicants the respondent's wife had deep roots in femina and was connected with the previous with a previous advancement and the complement but this finding was not sufficient to show that the respondent was biased or likely to be biased by virtue of the fact of his marriage to her and the court went ahead to lose that taking all the circumstances of the case and the accumulative effect into consideration a reasonable suspicion of bias on the part of the chairman had been established again a reasonable suspicion of bias on the part of the chairman of the committee has been established these circumstances and their cumulative effects did not however satisfy the legal standard of a real likelihood of bias so they caught in expert the very man has been declared that in this case they were able to establish a real suspicion of bias but that is not what the norm requires the law requires that you must prove a real likelihood of bias and because they have failed to prove the real likelihood of bias they thought that they must fail in their action so the application was dismissed the application to pass the decision taken by the chairman or the constitutional committee was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove a real likelihood of buyers and you realize from this case that proving that's real likely to bias it's not going to be a walk in the back it's not going to be easy and so many cases where people are alleged that they want to prove you like you don't buy at the end of feeling it is not an easy test to establish because in expertise but remember that not even found that there was a real suspicion of bias but tell that that would not be enough because what the law requires is a real likelihood of bias and not real suspicion it would be important for you to read the case of ex party at bishop i will see the second because in that case the court found that the real likelihood of buyers had been established and therefore a particular judge was prohibited from going ahead from participating in the hearing of the case so expertise they say the second is one of the very few cases in ghana in which persons succeeded improving a real likelihood of bias so what these cases established expected expertise attending general and salah the next part that we saw what they all established is that the person who alleges that a god has been by us is the one that has the burden to prove that the job is being by us and the evidence our burden is that he must prove on the preponderance of probabilities he must prove on the balance of probabilities a real likelihood of bias and not mere suspicion so what we have done so far is to discuss one leg of the natural gases which is nemo judex in course as well which means that a jad must not be biased it means that a guy should not have an interest in the outcome of his own case and so we have looked at different instances where that can apply and you have seen the that must be established before a person can be healed to be by us we look at who has the responsibility of meeting that particular standard and we know that once a job is by us and the whole decision becomes void you remember what we saw in times and grand junction even the law chancellor because he had the small financial interest shares in the company the court felt that they had to push it to serve as a lesson to all courts now it will interest you to know that there are some exceptions to this particular rule there are some exceptions to this rule of nemo due decks in as impossible there are some substance with a rule against buyers meaning that there are times when a particular judge may be found to have a particular interest or he may have redeemed may be decided by a case but he will be allowed to perform some rules in that part of my case and we will go ahead the first exception we shall look at is when the judge has a statutory duty to perform now what you should remember is that this principle of nemo do decks in courses it is an offshoot of the common law and so efforts comes from the common law and then a particular that has a statutory duty to perform means that you are relying on the common law to tell the court that the court should not be allowed to participate the judgment allowed to participate in the year because of the common law or any equitable principles that you are relying on and the question would be when the principle of equity conflicts with the statutory duty the law is that will allow the statutory duty to prevail and i shall use the case of aku for ardo and addis versus qashidan and addis to explain this assumption the case is reported in 1968 dana law reports at day six six seven now this is what happened in this case the blame that steve justice at the time had issued a circular to lawyers and some lawyers were not happy with the secular that the chief justices had issued so the plaintiffs in this case brought an action they sue the chief justice they sued the judicial secretary and they sued the general legal counsel the three defendants they have sued their chief justice they have fueled the they have sued their journal legal counsel they'll see the judicial security and then when the matter came before the cross you know by law the chief justice is the one that has the power to empanel the judges so they objected that since they are challenging and circular that the chief justice issued the chief justice should not be allowed to constitute the judges he should not be allowed to constitute the bench other than that according to them he can easily decide to empower people that will do his bidding so since they are challenging the actions of the very few dances he should not be allowed to do the environment now this is what the court said in holding one of the appeal that the function of the chief justice was to constitute the benches of the court of appeal as long as he remained in office and in the country he performed that as part of his administrative duties now where i started and joined a person to perform an act he had to do it even if his performance conflicted with the rules of natural justice so the court has held that when the principle of natural justice is conflicting with the performance of the statutory obligation then they will go ahead and violate the natural justice doctrine and the supreme court of appealing they relied on the case of times and grand junction canal company limited you remember diamonds in gangnam china what the people were challenging was a conduct of the lord chancellor himself and he had to sign some things before the appeal could be had so that of course that was a statutory duty and he could perform it so all we are saying and that is the one who released the second man and he's the one that has been sued so if they have sued him can he go ahead and do the empowerment the court is saying that since that is his duty statutory duty he can go ahead and perform it the same principle has been applied in the case of chat to chicago reported in 2001 2002 supreme court of ghana law reports had paid 437 in this case as well the suit was brought by chakuchika against the chief justice and attending general and once again we heard that steve jobs was a party to the suit he raised an objection that he should not be allowed to perform the function of empowering the courts but in this case heard that since it was a statutory duty of the chief justice to do the empowerment he could go ahead and still do the impermanence even if doing it is going to conflict with the principle of natural justice so in all these cases you can see clearly that when you bring an action against a person and the statutes requires him to perform an administrative or ministerial function you cannot use natural gas as a basis to prevent him from performing that administrative or ministerial function the final case on this exception that our use is the case of adjective versus attenuation investor attended dinner and another is reported in 2005 2006 supreme court of ghana law reports at page 732 and in this case the court also held the same position that once the statute of the constitution requires the chief justice to perform a statutory or administrative function you can still go at it to perform it even if the performance is going to conflict with natural justice because remember this nemo due dates in qatar is from the cost of equity in the common law this case is so crucial because in this case a petition has been sent by mr by the gritty for the removal of the few taxes from office that is how ceos it was and petitioned for the removal of the chief justice and then when the if there was an issue about whether or not they had to establish a final fashion case so when brazilian signed the petition to remove the chief justice an action was filed by jetu at the supreme court saying that the procedure that had been used by the president for the remover for the proceeding for the removal was not in consonance with the constitution so after the petition an issue has come to the supreme court and who has good empowerment the very person who you want to remove is the one that has good impermanence so as expected an objection was raised that the chief the cj should not be allowed to do the empowerment because allowing him is going to bring by us now is it really the case that if this supreme court's judged there's two gases and panels supreme court judges they're going to be biased is that really the case can they be the case that because the teachers have them are you saying that the chief gases do not have their own mind of their own let us see what the supreme court had to say in adjectives and not indiana because of how important it is i'm going to read relevant portions of the judgment of that glc and important from the victim of that emergency without suspension which the president has not carried out it is an uphill task to seek to prohibit a servant of justice from constituting the panels of the supreme court even if the exercise of the function gives an impression an impression of a conflict of interest an explanation for the reluctance by this ports amid predecessors to interfere with its function of the chief justice is probably to be found in the judicial oath of the judges supreme court judges are not malia berkeley in the hands of the chief justice the judges of the courts are likely to believe that whichever of their number are empowered will act independently therefore not too much hangs on the exercise of this ministerial as contrasted with the judicial power of the chief justice emissary as he then was makes a similar point in the 1968 ghana no reports at the 667 where he says as follows and i quote judges are sworn to do justice between the passes without fear or favor this all transcends mere invitations or even appointments to sit in a particular case whereas otherwise no one would dare fear for from fear of bias to bring an action against government because the very appointment of the judges is made by governments good things so that's the quote from our father but so i'm going ahead to still read the victim of the tibetan glc in addition and attending general the principle laid down in the akuffado case was that why the common law principles of natural justice conflicts with a mandated strategic provision statutory or by implication constitutional prohibition prevails even if it results in non-compliance with the rules of natural justice this position is justified by reference to the doctrine of necessity in that case msrja delivering the documents of the full bet of the court of appeal set as follows in my quotes in our opinion where a status clearly enjoins a person to perform an act he has to do it even if his performance is incompatible with the strict rules of natural gases and the good ends over there so what we can see from idea to an attorney general is that they have reaffirmed the long line of cases from akufado now that if the performance of a statutory duty is going to conflict the natural justice will still allow the chief justice to perform the statutory duty of the empowerment is one of the exceptions to the nemo due decks in concert one where they started tradition and you have several cases for that you have akuffado in question you have chattahoochee versus the penny general and chief justice you have yeti and attending general and you have dimes and grand junction come out second exception is the doctrine of necessity that is to say that if complying with the rule means that the case cannot be had then it means become a census on the principle if insistence on the rule means that there is not going to be any judge to adjudicate upon the matter will dispense with that natural justice principle and rather allow the judges to adjudicate for the matter you know this i refer you to the cases of marbury and madison and i also refer you to the case of bilson reported in 1981 ghana law reports at page 15. and in this case of bilson and napalu 1981 ghana report at page 15 this is the holding of the courts as captured in the head notes and i quote the rule of natural justice nemo judex in kosaswa also known as the rule against judicial bias arose in two ways one why the adjudicator was disqualified because he had direct financial or proprietary interest in the subject matter of the suits and iii where there was a real likelihood that the adjudicator would be biased in favor of one of the parties there were however three situations where the presence of any of the set disqualifying elements under the rule would not render the adjudicator incompetent to sit a it was always open to the parties on there being a price of the disqualifying elements to where they are right to objects to that indicator in a particular case be an announcement might permit an adjudicator to sit or might save that education from invalidity and see an adjudicator who might be otherwise disqualified would be nevertheless eligible and indeed obliged to sit if there was no other competent tribunal or if the quran would not be formed without him the policy reason underlying that deception was necessity in other words the common law considered its experience that justice should be displaced if even by a disqualified judge than that there should be a failure of justice or that the machinery of justice should grind to a holds in a particular case in the instant case natural justice had to yield to necessity since otherwise it would be impossible to constitute a column of five justices of the supreme court for hearing of the case and that article 115 of the 1979 constitution and it goes on to say that this is a proper occasion calling for the invocation of the doctrine of necessity to prevent a failure of justice the allegation of bias against the two justices notwithstanding so it means that if applying this whole thing of natural justice is going to grind the whole justice machinery into a halt such that they cannot even give any form in the courtroom to give a decision we will forget about natural gases and rather allow everybody to decide so that we can have justice so we have seen two exceptions so far to the principle of nemo judas and qatar we have seen one when there's a statutory obligation that has to be performed number two we have seen that out of the doctrine of necessity the third exception is a creation or waiver it was even mentioned in the case of deozona that if you it comes to your attention now the person that is being biased or has the tendency of being biased let's say he has a 59 interest and you are aware of it and you keep quiet you will be allowed you begin to have slept on your rights and you cannot later come and complain about the procedure so these are the three exceptions to the nemo judas in kosovo statutory duty acquisitions and then also when under the doctrine of necessity this brings us to the end of our lecture on natural justice specifically nemo judex in corsa and its applicability in ghana