Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals (consolidated) by Mr ElShanti of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2019/051 and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2019/065 respectively. On the consolidation of the cases, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had broad discretion in managing its cases and that it would only intervene in clear cases of denial of due process of law affecting a party¡¯s right to produce evidence. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Mr ElShanti¡¯s arguments against consolidation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to Mr ElShanti¡¯s claims that the characterization of the impugned administrative decision was incorrect, noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had the inherent authority to individualise and define it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT properly and reasonably exercised its duties to interpret and determine the scope and nature of Mr ElShanti¡¯s application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in law or fact. On the appeal of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2019/065, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that so far as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2019/065 addressed Mr ElShanti¡¯s application for interpretation, it was merely an explanation of its judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2019/051 and was not a fresh decision or judgment within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and therefore that part of the appeal was not receivable. On the part of the appeal that challenged judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2019/065 in so far as it addressed the application for revision in judgment Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2019/051, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was without merit on the basis that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that Mr ElShanti did not present to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT any new decisive fact in order to succeed in his request for revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision was a disguised way to criticize the underlying Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment or to disagree with it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no party may seek revision of a judgment merely because that part is dissatisfied with the pronouncement of the Tribunal and wants to have a second round of litigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the Administration¡¯s decision not to renew his appointment. In judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2019/051, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT held that the challenged administrative decision was reasonable and that the Applicant had failed to sustain the burden of proof required to establish the decision was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT dismissed the application. In addition, the Applicant made an application for a revision and interpretation of judgment. In judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2019/065, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT held that the Applicant failed to show or identify a decisive fact which was known to him or the Tribunal at the time of the judgment or that his ignorance of said fact would have been decisive in reaching that judgment and therefore dismissed the application. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT allowed the application for interpretation and provided the necessary interpretation and clarification.
Legal Principle(s)
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT has broad discretion in managing its cases and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT will only intervene in cases of denial of due process of law affecting a party¡¯s right to produce evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT has the inherent authority to individualize and define the administrative decision impugned by a party in a specific case, by adequately interpreting and comprehending the application submitted. The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and is not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his or her case. No party may seek revision of a judgment merely because that party is dissatisfied with the pronouncement of the Tribunal and wants to have a second round of litigation
Outcome
Outcome Extra Text
No relief ordered; No relief ordered.