005052. Bench, does not per se raise any reasonable doubt as to the impartiality of the Review Bench to correct any errors found. 120. Onthe personal bias of judges, the Court notes that there is no evidence on record showing that the judges were predisposed or had preconceived bias against the Applicant, which would lead to a reasonable conclusion they would not render a decision. Bench fair In fact, the judges who sat at the Ordinary Bench and later at the Review were the same judges who unanimously rendered the decision, which was interpreted by the Applicant to be in his favour, when they ruled that his matter should be examined by the High Court. Therefore, the Applicant’s contention that the Review Bench was partial is based on a misapprehension that is neither justified nor objective. 121. In view of the above, Bench of the Supreme the Court concludes that the composition of the Review Court by judges who had participated in the Ordinary Bench does not call into question the impartiality of the Review Bench. b) Whether the remarks made by Justice Dotse call into question the impartiality of the Review Bench of the Supreme Court 122. The Applicant alleges that his right to be tried by an impartial court has been violated by the Respondent State because the lead judgment of the Review Bench was drafted by Justice Dotse who had expressed biased opinions in a concurring judgment, In this regard, the Applicant at the Ordinary Bench. avers that in his concurring opinion at the Ordinary Bench of the Supreme Court, Justice Dotse alleged that the Applicant had no contract with the Respondent State and as such, was not entitled to the money that was paid to him. Moreover, in the same opinion, Justice Dotse stated that the Applicant had formed an alliance with another party, Waterville to “create, loot and share the resources of the country as if a brigade had been set up for such an enterprise.” and further referred to the Applicant as being at the centre of “the infamous Woyome payment scandal”. A,