Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal against both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/106/Corr.1 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and certain conduct by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and its Registrar. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s criticisms of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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 were impermissible, irregular and in violation of the functus officio doctrine. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the irregular corrections were of no prejudicial consequence and the appeal should be dismissed on that ground alone. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the various causes of action raised by the Appellant had been raised inconsistently, but that as he was not legally represented, it was not in the interests of justice to hold him formalistically and technically to what he may or may not have pleaded. Considering three possible grounds of appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held: that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not competent to grant interim relief; that there was no evidence to support a finding that the Appellant was prejudiced in some way by the rejection of the application for interim relief; and, that even if the Registrar, rather than Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, irregularly took the decision to reject the application for interim relief, the Appellant was put in no worse position than that which the law and circumstances objectively mandated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not prejudiced in any way by being required to re-file his application for interim relief. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no valid grounds or practical reasons for remitting the matter to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for reconsideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.