which extended to the Plaintiff’s Counsel and made him uncomfortable to which he threatened to withdraw from his case. The Plaintiff also reiterated that the trial Judge had served under him both as acting chief justice and chief justice and on the two occasions, the Plaintiff had issued instructions to him to which the Judge was hostile and questioned such instructions. The Plaintiff further made mention of the petition against the trial Judge to which the Plaintiff expressed certain views not favorable to the trial Judge. In the said affidavit, the Plaintiff stated that he raised and argued a preliminary objection against the state to which the Judge overruled and granted the application without hearing on the merit. Furthermore, the Plaintiff stated that at times during the trial, the Judge tried to reshape the prosecution’s questions for witnesses to his detriment especially when the case was handled by the Judge’s nephew who to the best of the Plaintiff’s knowledge lives with him. An allegation of bias in any adjudication process is a matter that courts take very seriously. The assertions made on oath must be viewed from an objective and reasonable standpoint. It is often impossible to determine with any measure of precision the state of mind of an adjudicator who has rendered a verdict. Accordingly, the courts take the position that an appearance of impartiality is in itself an essential component of procedural fairness. The test applicable to determine whether a judicial officer is disqualified from hearing a case by reason of a reasonable apprehension of bias was enunciated in PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA AND OTHERS V SOUTH AFRICAN RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION AND OTHERS. 1 [1999] ZACC 9; 1999 (4) SA 147 (CC) para 48. In that case the Constitutional Court said: 24