Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Onifade¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-668. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence before it to support the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Onifade had failed to show that the first MOP form was unknown to him at the time the judgment was rendered and he had presented no decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to him and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not meet the criteria established under Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application had no merit and dismissed it.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Previous Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment: Mr Onifade contested the disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and termination indemnity for misconduct. The misconduct took the form of including false information in movement of personnel (MOP) forms, which he approved in his official capacity on two occasions and allowing another person to reside in his Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS-provided residence without requesting or obtaining the required authorization. In judgment No. 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-668, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr Onifade¡¯s appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in its entirety. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusions that the investigation was not ultra vires and that Mr Onifade¡¯s due process rights were respected during the investigation and disciplinary stages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, that the finding of misconduct was warranted, and that the sanction was proportionate to the offence.
Legal Principle(s)
A party may apply for revision of a judgment on the basis of the discovery of a decisive fact, which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the party, provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.