Pecuniary interests and the rule against adjudicative bias: the automatic disqualification or objective reasonable approach?
| dc.contributor.author | Okpaluba, C. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Juma, L. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2016-06-03T12:57:14Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2016-06-03T12:57:14Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
| dc.description.abstract | English: This article deals with the issue of bias arising from pecuniary interest of a judge. Essentially, it asks the question: when does the pecuniary interest of a judge diminish his/her ability to apply his/her mind impartially to the dispute before him/her. To answer this question, the article undertakes a synthesis of the various rules and tests applied across Commonwealth jurisdictions and then compares them with the South African approach as outlined in two recent cases, namely Bernert v ABSA Bank Ltd 2011 (3) SA 92 (CC) and Ndimeni v Meeg Bank Ltd (Bank of Transkei) 2011 (1) SA 560 (SCA). Broadly, the article discusses the key aspects of the automatic disqualification approach preferred by the English courts, the Canadian objective reasonable approach and the realistic possibility approach recently adopted by the Australian courts. The article concludes that the South African approach that places emphasis on the objective reasonable test, complemented by the realistic possibility approach, may be most suitable, given the nature of complaints so far dealt with by the courts and the full propriety of the injunction in section 34 of the Constitution. | en_ZA |
| dc.description.abstract | Afrikaans: Hierdie artikel hanteer die kwessie van vooroordeel wat ontstaan as gevolg van die geldelike belange van ’n regter. In wese word die vraag gestel: Wanneer verminder die geldelike belange van ’n regter sy/haar vermoë om onpartydig aandag te bestee aan die betrokke geskil. Om hierdie vraag te beantwoord, word verskeie reëls en toetse toegepas in Statebond jurisdiksies saamgevat en vergelyk met die Suid-Afrikaanse benadering soos uiteengesit in Bernert v ABSA Bank Ltd 2011 (3) SA 92 (CC) en Ndimeni v Meeg Bank Ltd (Bank of Transkei) 2011 (1) SA 560 (SCA). Oor die algemeen bespreek die artikel die hoofaspekte van die outomatiese diskwalifikasie-benadering wat deur die Engelse howe verkies word, die Kanadese objektiewe redelike-benadering en die realis moontlikheid-benadering wat onlangs deur die Australiese howe aanvaar is. Daar word tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat die Suid-Afrikaanse benadering wat die objektiewe redelike toets vooropstel, aangevul deur die realis moontlikheid-benadering, die geskikste mag wees, gegewe die aard van die klagtes wat die howe tot dusver hanteer het en die volle eiendom van die konstitusionele bevel soos vervat in artikel 34. | af |
| dc.description.version | Publisher's version | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.citation | Okpaluba, C., & Juma, L. (2011). Pecuniary interests and the rule against adjudicative bias: the automatic disqualification or objective reasonable approach?. Journal for Juridical Science, 36(2), 97-118. | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0258-252X (print) | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2415-0517 (online) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11660/2683 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_ZA |
| dc.publisher | Faculty of Law, University of the Free State | en_ZA |
| dc.rights.holder | Faculty of Law, University of the Free State | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Judges | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Bernert v ABSA Bank Ltd 2011 (3) SA 92 (CC) | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Commonwealth | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | South Africa | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Pecuniary interests | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Bias | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Ndimeni v Meeg Bank Ltd (Bank of Transkei) 2011 (1) SA 560 (SCA) | en_ZA |
| dc.title | Pecuniary interests and the rule against adjudicative bias: the automatic disqualification or objective reasonable approach? | en_ZA |
| dc.type | Article | en_ZA |