Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-015 by Ms. Macharia. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Macharia provided no evidence upon which it could infer that there was bias or likelihood of bias on the part of Judge Izuako. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, with regard to the Legal Officer who allegedly had a personal friendship with Judge Boolell, there was no evidence for it to draw the conclusion that the Legal Officer influenced the proceedings or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge in her decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Macharia did not offer any evidence in support of her bare assertions casting serious doubt on the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-014 by Mr Luvai. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the allegation that the Legal Officer who was assigned to the case before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was a Facebook ¡°friend¡± of Judge Boolell, the then Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT President, and of a few other people who could have been tangentially involved in the issues of the underlying dispute and that Judge Boolell somehow influenced the judge sitting on the instant case to rule improperly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Luvai offered not a shred of proof of anything improper. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the application.

The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-034. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Al-Mulla¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-226. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the application for revision was signed more than six months beyond the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-084 filed by the estate of Mr Sanwidi. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the estate of Mr Sandwidi did not present new evidence but merely expressed disagreement with the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr El Khatib¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-142. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr El Khatib did not identify any fact unknown at the time of the impugned judgment which could justify its review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that what he actually sought was a discussion of the amount of compensation awarded to him, an option not granted by the Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the petition did not meet the statutory requirements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Applicant¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-209. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request filed by the Applicant constituted a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, a recourse against a final judgment that is not provided for in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issuance of another judgment during the same session as which the Applicant¡¯s case was decided did not constitute a new fact, but rather law and that there was no possibility for a revision based on law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was submitted almost one year...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Maghari¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-039. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the grounds filed did not fall within Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and did not constitute a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, known to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and to the party applying for revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Maghari merely disagreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT decision and sought to reargue his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged error in the factual findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not constitute circumstances that warranted revision, because none of them would result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in vacating the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and affirming Mr Massah¡¯s separation from service for serious misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was inadmissible since its goal was to litigate the case de novo as a result of counsel not agreeing with the final judgment, an option which was not provided to the parties by the applicable law...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Obdeijn¡¯s application for revision of judgment in respect of judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-201. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn¡¯s submissions were irrelevant as they did not meet the requirements set out in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn¡¯s failure to submit evidence of alleged economic loss during the proceedings before both Tribunals did not constitute a newly discovered decisive fact warranting a revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn could not rely on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s inherent jurisdiction to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute from a rule based on...