2015-罌厭弝ⅰAT-554

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

罌厭弝ⅰAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰRWA/DT/2014/017. 罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that judgment No. 2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-963 was a final judgment and therefore the Appellant＊s case was res judicata, which meant that the Appellant was precluded from raising his claim again. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT made no error in finding the Appellant＊s application manifestly inadmissible and dismissing it without referring it to the Commissioner-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held as unsustainable the Appellant＊s claim that 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT erred in law when it considered his application was an application against judgment No. 2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-363. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant had no locus standi to bring the appeal and dismissed it. Noting that it had no doubt that the Appellant fully understood the legal effect of the previous decision of 罌厭弝ⅰAT, and that the Appellant continued to defy the judgments of both 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT and 罌厭弝ⅰAT that his claim was not receivable, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant manifestly abused the appeals process by deliberately filing an appeal that was blatantly frivolous and vexatious. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Commissioner-General had made his case for an order for costs against the Appellant. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal, affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT judgment, awarded costs of USD 9,600 against the Appellant and directed the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Registrar not to accept any filing from the Appellant until such costs were paid.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant filed a series of appeals pertaining to his non-selection to take a written test for two posts. In judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰRWA/DT/2012/038, 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT rejected his claim as non-receivable ratione temporis. In judgment No. 2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-363, 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT＊s time-bar finding. The Applicant then filed an application contesting judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰRWA/DT/2012/038/Corr. 1 and judgment No. 2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-363. In judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰRWA/DT/2014/017, 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT summarily dismissed the application as manifestly inadmissible.

Legal Principle(s)

The authority of a final judgment (res judicata) cannot be readily set aside.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Chaaban

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement