This was an appeal against the rejection of a recusal application by a magistrate who was also charged with the administration or permits and licences under the Fauna Proclamation. The appellants had allegedly contravened made an unauthorized entry into the Central Kalahari Game Reserve contrary to section 2 of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. The court considered the test for recusal of a judicial officer. It was noted that the test is one of a likelihood of bias and not actual bias. The court found that the appellants were tried by the very person whose duty it was to administer the law they were alleged to have contravened. The court appreciated that this would create an impression of an unfair trial to the appellants. However, the court emphasized that there was no ground or belief that there was any bias by the magistrate or an unfair trial. The court found that the magistrate ought to have recused himself.