Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Mr. Mukeba's application for revision did not fulfil the strict and exceptional criteria established by Article 11 of the Statute.

Mr. Abdalla filed an application for revision and interpretation of Judgment No. 2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1078, claiming that the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had a suspensive effect on the ongoing proceedings in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that therefore the extended time limit to file an application would not have elapsed, and thus his ultimate application should be received; and that once Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had dismissed the Secretary-General's appeal, it should have remanded the case for further adjudication. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Abdalla had failed to point to any statement or consideration in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment which would...

The Secretary-General sought interpretation, revision, and execution of Judgment No. 2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1118, on grounds that he was unable to effectuate the compensation awarded in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment because Mr. Dieng refused to provide his banking details. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Judgment was clear, written in plain and unambiguous language, and it left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant. Thus, there was no need for clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the Secretary-General had failed to argue that he had discovered a decisive fact which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal at the time the Judgment...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1106. With reference to Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was neither satisfied that the blank tax returns as provided by Mr. Giles¡¯ were unknown to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and to the party applying for the revision at the time the relevant Judgment was rendered nor that the blank tax returns were a decisive fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Applicant reiterated arguments he had made previously, which was not the purpose nor intention of an application for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

The staff member applies for revision of Judgment on account that both he and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT were unaware of various Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgments dealing with service-incurred injury cases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the application for revision on account that the nature of the injury, whether service-incurred or not, had no bearing on whether the staff member was debarred from receiving compensation. The reason he was denied compensation was because he did not assign his right of action, not because of the nature of his injury, service-incurred or not. Furthermore, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also reasoned prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgments do not...

Ms. Reilly filed an application for correction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that her application was in substance both an application for correction and revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the corrections sought were of no material relevance to the outcome and reasoning of the judgment. With respect to one correction sought, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Secretary-General conceded that he had furnished the Appeals Tribunal with incorrect information - Ms. Reilly was on special leave with pay for four rather than six days in October 2019. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, found that that was not a decisive fact, as it...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administration Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable and dismissed the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-098. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not meet the statutory requirements of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged new information or misinterpretation of the date of a transaction did not constitute circumstances that warranted a revision, because they would not result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for vacating the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and affirming the administrative decision of summary dismissal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not admissible since it repeated an argument already examined and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-014 by Mr Luvai. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the allegation that the Legal Officer who was assigned to the case before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was a Facebook ¡°friend¡± of Judge Boolell, the then Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT President, and of a few other people who could have been tangentially involved in the issues of the underlying dispute and that Judge Boolell somehow influenced the judge sitting on the instant case to rule improperly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Luvai offered not a shred of proof of anything improper. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the application.

The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-034. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.