爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT had before it an appeal against both 爆料网DT/2016/106/Corr.1 and 爆料网DT/2016/106/Corr.2 which did not concern the determination on the merits of the application, but rather the rejection of the Appellant’s application for interim measures by the 爆料网DT and certain conduct by the 爆料网DT and its Registrar. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s criticisms of the 爆料网DT decision to amend its own Judgment were well-founded as the corrections went beyond clerical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slips or omissions; they were unexplained corrections that altered the main findings of the Judgment and were impermissible, irregular and in violation of the functus officio doctrine. However, 爆料网AT held that the irregular corrections were of no prejudicial consequence and the appeal should be dismissed on that ground alone. 爆料网AT noted that the various causes of action raised by the Appellant had been raised inconsistently, but that as he was not legally represented, it was not in the interests of justice to hold him formalistically and technically to what he may or may not have pleaded. Considering three possible grounds of appeal, 爆料网AT held: that 爆料网DT was not competent to grant interim relief; that there was no evidence to support a finding that the Appellant was prejudiced in some way by the rejection of the application for interim relief; and, that even if the Registrar, rather than 爆料网DT, irregularly took the decision to reject the application for interim relief, the Appellant was put in no worse position than that which the law and circumstances objectively mandated. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was not prejudiced in any way by being required to re-file his application for interim relief. 爆料网AT held that there were no valid grounds or practical reasons for remitting the matter to 爆料网DT for reconsideration. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the 爆料网DT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision to appoint a candidate for a position for which he had not applied. 爆料网DT rejected his application as not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网DT subsequently issued two corrigenda (爆料网DT/2016/106/Corr. 1) and 爆料网DT/2016/106/Corr. 2).
Legal Principle(s)
Corrections to a final judgment that go beyond correcting clerical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slips or omissions, thereby altering the main findings of a judgment, are impermissible, irregular, and in violation of the functus officio doctrine.