"However, it is clear that by the time the Respondent had a meeting with the Applicant, a decision had already been made and the time for compliance was running. From the contents of the letter it is clear that by the time the said meeting was held, the Respondent had to all intents and purposes not only made findings but even arrived at its recommendations which were to be implemented by the Applicant. In my view a process by which an administrative body makes findings and proceeds to make recommendations before affording persons affected thereby cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as fair in order to meet the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitution. For a hearing to be said to be fair not only should the case that the respondent is called upon to be meet be sufficiently brought home to him and adequate or reasonable notice to enable him deal with it given but also the authority concerned ought to approach the issue with an unbiased disposition. In other words the authority ought not to be seen to be seeking representations from the respondent simply for the purposes of meeting the legal criteria. The fair hearing must be meaningful for it to meet the constitutional threshold."