SIFAX (NIG.) LTD V. PHOENIX CAPITAL LTD. (2025) 5 NWLR (PT. 1984) 199
ON MEANING OF RECUSAL WITH RESPECT TO JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Recusal, with respect to judicial proceedings is the stepping aside or disqualification of a judicial officer from a case on the ground of personal interest in the matter, bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest, or if he has conducted himself in such a way that he could be regarded as having become, directly or indirectly, a party to the proceedings. (P. 234, paras. C-D).
SIFAX (NIG.) LTD V. PHOENIX CAPITAL LTD. (2025) 5 NWLR (PT. 1984) 199
ON HOW TO APPLY FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE
An application for the recusal of a judge should be brought before the judge sought to be recused. It is improper to write a petition to higher authorities against the judex to trigger a recusal. A motion on notice should be filed with relevant reasons and facts before the court or an oral application to the court can be made to initiate a recusal of the judex. It is after notice has been given of the anxiety by one of the parties that there may be likelihood of bias in the course of the proceedings and the application is refused by the court that it automatically becomes a ground of appeal. (P. 234, paras. E-G).
SIFAX (NIG.) LTD V. PHOENIX CAPITAL LTD. (2025) 5 NWLR (PT. 1984) 199
ON MEANING OF BIAS
Bias is a state of mind and is not amenable to any precise definition or proof. It is idle to speculate on what goes on in the mind of another person but the inference of bias can be drawn from the proceedings.
(P. 234, para. H).
SIFAX (NIG.) LTD V. PHOENIX CAPITAL LTD. (2025) 5 NWLR (PT. 1984) 199
ON CATEGORIES OF BIAS
BIAS CAN BE OF THREE CATEGORIES:
(a) pecuniary bias as exhibited by a member of the tribunal or court having a pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the dispute;
(b) personal bias shown in the existence of close relationship between a member of the tribunal or court and one of the parties to the dispute; and
(c) official bias shown in an abnormal desire or inclination to pursue a pre-determined line of action which would prevent an impartial adjudication of the dispute between the parties.
[Adebesin v. State (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt.1413) 609referred to.] (P. 234, Paras. A-C).