Judgment No. CCZ 7/2015 7 Const. Application No. CCZ 472/14 The rules of natural justice require that whoever takes a decision should be impartial, having no personal interest in the outcome of the case and that a decision should not be taken until the person affected by it has had an opportunity to state his case. A judicial officer has an obligation to ensure that a trial is conducted in a manner that is fair to all parties before him. To that end, the judicial officer is required to leave the dispute to the parties before him as far as is reasonably possible, and should interrupt only when it is necessary to clarify some point in the interests of justice. In view of the stance assumed by the learned trial judge, the defence proffered on behalf of the applicant was not properly evaluated thus further undermining the trial. His right to a fair hearing as guaranteed under s 69(1) was clearly violated. In my view the finding that the trial was not fair determines the application, and it becomes unnecessary to resolve the question relating to the constitutional validity of the sentence of death imposed upon the applicant. One of the two issues referred to this court by the Supreme Court has been decided in favour of the applicant. Both counsel are agreed that it would be in the interests of justice if the proceedings in the High Court were to be set aside as being inconsistent with s 69(1) the Constitution. Under such circumstances no benefit would ensue from a determination on the question of the constitutional validity of the sentence when the trial proceedings have been set aside. It is further agreed between counsel that it would be in the interests of justice if the matter were to be remitted for trial de novo before a different judge. Accordingly it is declared that: