Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT considered the application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-014 by Mr Luvai. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT considered the allegation that the Legal Officer who was assigned to the case before Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT was a Facebook ¡°friend¡± of Judge Boolell, the then Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT 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¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that Mr Luvai offered not a shred of proof of anything improper. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT denied the application.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
In judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-014, Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/2009/74 which had found that no rights of Mr Luvai had been breached by a vacancy announcement and that he failed to prove his other allegations.
Legal Principle(s)
An application for revision of judgment may be made on the basis of the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT and to the party applying for revision, provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.