[1] The issue isthe judge should have disclosed to the partiesthat he was, at one point of time in his career in the employment of the 1 st Respondent, before proceeding to hear the application for leave for judicial review to review the impugned decision. For the dispelling of any doubt, the term 'the judge' as used in this judgement is a reference to me asthe sitting in this case, whom the 1 st Respondent, via this pplication in Enclosure 14 is seeking to be recused from hearing this case. It wasthe contention for the 1 st Respondent that asthe judge had failed to declare that fact, the leave that was granted ex-parte to the Applicant on the 08 November 2011 must be set aside.

[2] Having heard and considered the submissions by both parties, the question that came to be decided has become whether the continuing duty to disclose by the judge actually arose in this case under the circumstancesthat obtained before this Court.

To my mind, the answer ought to be in the negative for 2 reasons:

2.1 The judge had left the employment of the 1 st Respondent some 5 years ago, in 2007. From the evidence as led