Judgment-related matters | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-646, Dalgaard et al.

24 Mar 2016

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the motion did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute, which provides that a revision must be based on the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to 罌厭弝ⅰAT and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence. The Applicants were relying on Article 31. 1 of the RoP and not on Article 11 of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that a rule could not supplant a statutory provision such as Article 11 and that Article 31. 1 only applied where there is no other expressly...

2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-645, Fiala

24 Mar 2016

罌厭弝ⅰAT found that the execution of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2014/007 had been suspended following the filing of the Secretary-General＊s appeal to 罌厭弝ⅰAT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment had become duly executable upon the issuing to the parties of judgment No. 2015-罌厭弝ⅰAT-516 wherein 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the Secretary-General＊s appeal against 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the staff member＊s motion seeking execution was properly filed before 罌厭弝ⅰAT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the request for execution had been rendered moot by the event that the payment was issued on 22 July 2015. 罌厭弝ⅰAT considered that the only...

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-808, Likukela

27 Oct 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-737 filed by Ms Likukela. As a preliminary matter, 罌厭弝ⅰAT denied her motion to supply additional filings. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that Ms Likukela presented no new and/or decisive fact which at the time the judgment was rendered was unknown within the meaning of Article 11(1) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the application for revision and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰAT judgment.

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-796, Porter

27 Oct 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the paragraphs of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment in question were in a plain, unambiguous language that left no reasonable doubt as to their meaning and that they required no interpretation. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in law in holding that the application for interpretation was receivable. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT should have dealt with the claim for interest in its judgment, but it omitted to do so. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded its competence by wrongly applying Article 12(3) of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute to alter the substance of its final ruling by...

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-775, Onifade

14 Jul 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered Mr Onifade＊s application for revision of judgment No. 2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-668. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there was no evidence before it to support the application. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that Mr Onifade had failed to show that the first MOP form was unknown to him at the time the judgment was rendered and he had presented no decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to him and 罌厭弝ⅰAT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the application did not meet the criteria established under Article 11(1) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute and Article 24 of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT RoP. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the application had no merit and dismissed it...

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-735, Awe

31 Mar 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-667. Noting that there was no provision under its Rules of Procedure allowing for the submission of additional pleadings after the submission of comments to an application for revision of judgment and that no exceptional circumstances existed, 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed Mr Awe＊s motion to file additional comments. 罌厭弝ⅰAT considered Mr Awe＊s claim to have discovered new facts in the form of a report of the fact-finding panel which considered his complaints of abuse of authority and harassment which allegedly showed, in sum, the improper...

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-722, Auda

31 Mar 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT had before it an appeal against both 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2016/106/Corr.1 and 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2016/106/Corr.2 which did not concern the determination on the merits of the application, but rather the rejection of the Appellant＊s application for interim measures by the 罌厭弝ⅰDT and certain conduct by the 罌厭弝ⅰDT and its Registrar. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant＊s criticisms of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT decision to amend its own Judgment were well-founded as the corrections went beyond clerical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slips or omissions; they were unexplained corrections that altered the main findings of the Judgment and...

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-719, Saeed

31 Mar 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered a request for revision of judgment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that Mr Saeed had not presented any new and decisive fact and that therefore his application was without merit. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the application for revision.

2018-罌厭弝ⅰAT-890, Mbaigolmem

26 Oct 2018

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an application for revision of judgment filed by Mr Mbaigolmem. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had to prove that he had discovered a decisive fact that was unknown to both him and 罌厭弝ⅰAT at the time of judgment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had failed to establish an unknown decisive fact that could warrant revision of the judgment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the application for revision of judgment.

2018-罌厭弝ⅰAT-863, Afawubo

29 Jun 2018

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered the Appellant＊s appeal. As a preliminary matter, 罌厭弝ⅰAT refused the Appellant＊s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. 罌厭弝ⅰAT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. 罌厭弝ⅰAT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute, which notes that...