Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged error in the factual findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not constitute circumstances that warranted revision, because none of them would result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in vacating the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and affirming Mr Massah¡¯s separation from service for serious misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was inadmissible since its goal was to litigate the case de novo as a result of counsel not agreeing with the final judgment, an option which was not provided to the parties by the applicable law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and, as such, was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the application for revision of judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr Massah was separated from service on the grounds of serious misconduct in the form of sexual exploitation and abuse. Following a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment which found no evidence to establish any act of sexual exploitation on the part of Mr Massah and that he had misused the Organisation¡¯s information technology resources by using his computer to store pornographic pictures. In judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-274, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reversed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings, concluding there was sufficient evidence of sexual exploitation and Mr Massah¡¯s dismissal was proportionate with the nature of the misconduct.
Legal Principle(s)
An application for revision of a final judgment can only succeed if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, Article 11(1). The Authority of a final judgment ¨C res judicata ¨C cannot be easily set aside.