爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT had before it an appeal of judgment No. 爆料网DT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant’s appeal due to lack of legal representation. 爆料网AT agreed with the Secretary-General’s claim that the Motion filed by the Appellant was an additional supplemental pleading addressing the merits of his claims. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional pleading or good cause to postpone consideration of his appeal and his request was denied. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT properly treated the Appellant’s application for revision as an application for revision of judgment No. 爆料网DT/2012/192, rather than an application for revision of Gakumba I. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had reached the end of the judicial process available to him when 爆料网AT denied his request for revision of Gakumba I in Gakumba II (judgment No. 2014-爆料网AT-492). 爆料网AT held that the Appellant could not return to 爆料网DT for additional review, regardless of the name of the document he filed. 爆料网AT held that res judicata had attached to his case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly determined that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT held that there was no error of fact or law in 爆料网DT’s conclusion that the Appellant’s application for revision of judgment No. 爆料网DT/2012/192 was not receivable. Noting that the Appellant had not contested the award of costs against him, 爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s request that 爆料网AT overturns the 爆料网DT finding of withdrawal of the USD 500 costs and instead order the Appellant to pay that amount to the 爆料网AT Registry. 爆料网AT determined that the issue was not an issue raised on appeal and such concerns should be raised with 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant manifestly abused the appeals process by bringing the frivolous appeal of an unassailable judgment by 爆料网DT, repeating arguments that did not succeed before 爆料网DT, which had already awarded costs against him. 爆料网AT awarded costs in the amount of USD 500 against the Appellant. 爆料网AT denied the appeal, affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment, and awarded costs (USD 500) against the Appellant.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant filed an application for revision of Gakumba I (judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-387) before 爆料网DT, which treated the application as an application for revision of its previous 2012 judgment (judgment No. 爆料网DT/2012/192). 爆料网DT issued Summary judgment No. 爆料网DT/2015/006, finding the application was not receivable and dismissing it. 爆料网DT awarded costs against the Applicant in the amount of USD 500 for manifestly abusing the 爆料网DT proceedings.
Legal Principle(s)
There is no right to be represented by OSLA. The role of 爆料网DT incudes adequately interpreting and comprehending the application submitted by the moving party, whatever name the party attaches to the document. A judgment by 爆料网AT is a final judgment since it is a judgment of the highest tribunal in the 爆料网 internal justice system. There must be an end to litigation and the stability of the judicial process requires that final judgments by an appellate court be set aside only on limited grounds and for the gravest of reasons.