Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Execution of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAdT judgments: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAdT had, and by virtue of the transfer of cases to it, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has, power to order execution of judgments of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAdT just as it has power to deal with applications for execution under its own Statute and Rules. Time limit for applying for execution of judgment: no time limit is set out in the rules and no party should be without a remedy where execution of judgments is in issue. In this case the Applicant had done all he could to bring the matter to early resolution, it was not his fault that his earlier requests had been ignored. Damages for non-execution: this is a distinct head of damage to the moral injury caused by the original defamation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that all aspects of the Applicant¡¯s claim relating to defamation is res judicata, but the application for execution was receivable ratione materiae as, even though the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAdT did not consider it had the power to deal with requests for execution of judgments, that power was inherent and by virtue of the transfer of the case to the subject matter is receivable. As the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAdT statute was silent as to applications for execution, no time limit is prescribed. Even where the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT statute specifically allows for such applications, no time limit is prescribed. A party benefiting from a judgment in his favour must be entitled to apply to the court where the other party has failed to comply with the terms of the judgment. In this case, the Applicant raised such a request in a timely manner with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAdT but it was ignored. A person in the Applicant¡¯s position cannot be without remedy. Applying articles 19 and 36, the Tribunal considers the Application receivable ratione temporis.