2015-罌厭弝ⅰAT-591

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ⅰDT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, 罌厭弝ⅰAT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant＊s appeal due to lack of legal representation. 罌厭弝ⅰAT agreed with the Secretary-General＊s claim that the Motion filed by the Appellant was an additional supplemental pleading addressing the merits of his claims. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional pleading or good cause to postpone consideration of his appeal and his request was denied. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT properly treated the Appellant＊s application for revision as an application for revision of judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2012/192, rather than an application for revision of Gakumba I. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant had reached the end of the judicial process available to him when 罌厭弝ⅰAT denied his request for revision of Gakumba I in Gakumba II (judgment No. 2014-罌厭弝ⅰAT-492). 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant could not return to 罌厭弝ⅰDT for additional review, regardless of the name of the document he filed. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that res judicata had attached to his case. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT correctly determined that the Appellant＊s application was not receivable ratione materiae. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there was no error of fact or law in 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s conclusion that the Appellant＊s application for revision of judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2012/192 was not receivable. Noting that the Appellant had not contested the award of costs against him, 罌厭弝ⅰAT considered the Secretary-General＊s request that 罌厭弝ⅰAT overturns the 罌厭弝ⅰDT finding of withdrawal of the USD 500 costs and instead order the Appellant to pay that amount to the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Registry. 罌厭弝ⅰAT determined that the issue was not an issue raised on appeal and such concerns should be raised with 罌厭弝ⅰDT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant manifestly abused the appeals process by bringing the frivolous appeal of an unassailable judgment by 罌厭弝ⅰDT, repeating arguments that did not succeed before 罌厭弝ⅰDT, which had already awarded costs against him. 罌厭弝ⅰAT awarded costs in the amount of USD 500 against the Appellant. 罌厭弝ⅰAT denied the appeal, affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment, and awarded costs (USD 500) against the Appellant.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant filed an application for revision of Gakumba I (judgment No. 2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-387) before 罌厭弝ⅰDT, which treated the application as an application for revision of its previous 2012 judgment (judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2012/192). 罌厭弝ⅰDT issued Summary judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2015/006, finding the application was not receivable and dismissing it. 罌厭弝ⅰDT awarded costs against the Applicant in the amount of USD 500 for manifestly abusing the 罌厭弝ⅰDT proceedings.

Legal Principle(s)

There is no right to be represented by OSLA. The role of 罌厭弝ⅰDT incudes adequately interpreting and comprehending the application submitted by the moving party, whatever name the party attaches to the document. A judgment by 罌厭弝ⅰAT is a final judgment since it is a judgment of the highest tribunal in the 罌厭弝ⅰ internal justice system. There must be an end to litigation and the stability of the judicial process requires that final judgments by an appellate court be set aside only on limited grounds and for the gravest of reasons.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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

Gakumba

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement