(iii) a judicial official has some connection with the case or a parhJ to the case; 103. The Commission considers that the circumstances referred to above may be argued to establish a presumption of partiality of the Court. It must also be noted however, that the Commission has found no indication that the Complainant objected to the judge presiding on the appeal through a Petition for recusal as is the normal practice. The record demonstrates however, that the Complainant objected to the Presiding judge after the fact by writing the Commission on administration of justice on the 27th and 31 st of July, 3 and 7 days after the hearing, respectively. The Commission notes that this ex post facto protest places the converts the Commission into a court of first instance on this specific allegation, an allegation which the Complainant could have diligently pursued in a petition for recusal. The Commission declines to find a violation in this regard. 104. The Complainant also alleges delays in the appointment of benches by the Chief Justice in Nairobi HIGH Court Miscallaneous Civil Application No.22 of 2004 and Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No.266 of 2008, Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Application No. NAI 261 of 2007 [UR 161 of 2007] and Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Application No. NAI 320 of 2007 [UR220 of 2007]. He also alleges delay by the Registrar in, supplying him with the record in order to mount his appeal against Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No.266 of 2008, Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Application No. NAI 261 of 2007 [UR 161 of 2007] and Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Application No. NAI 320 of 2007 [UR220 of 2007]. These allegations concern Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter on the right to an appeal. The Commission also refers to the Judgement of the African Court in Makungu v Tanzania which interpreted Article 7(1)(a) as follows: "This right to appeal requires that ·individuals are provided with an opportunihJ to access competent organs, to appeal decisions or acts violating their rights. It entails that States should establish mechanisms for such appeals and take necessan; action that facilitates the exercise of this right by individuals, including providing them with the judgments or decisions that they wish to appeal from ."40 The Commission indeed notes that there was a passage of time prior to the issuance of the Complainant with a record as well as with the appointment of benches to hear his appeals. However, the Commission is not persuaded that these delays were inordinate. Furthermore, the Commission takes the view that the nature of the allegations made, and the judicial process followed afforded the complainant access to justice and satisfied the minimum requirements of Article 7 of the African Charter. The fact that the Complainant's appeals were delayed and unsuccessful does not on its own contravene Article 7 of the Charter. For the Commission to find a violation of Article 7, It would have to satisfy its at~-1'", Complainant suffered substantial prejudice and denied access to "0:~.. 105. f "" '"' 40 (merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR 550, para 57 11 ~ 1\\ j n 12 .:i: I, ::: 9 ' ~ .__.___,,. _,.. (l ;;: I (,J