爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered two appeals (consolidated) by Mr ElShanti of judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2019/051 and judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2019/065 respectively. On the consolidation of the cases, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA 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, 爆料网AT rejected Mr ElShanti’s arguments against consolidation. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit to Mr ElShanti’s claims that the characterization of the impugned administrative decision was incorrect, noting that 爆料网RWA DT had the inherent authority to individualise and define it. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT properly and reasonably exercised its duties to interpret and determine the scope and nature of Mr ElShanti’s application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err in law or fact. On the appeal of 爆料网RWA/DT/2019/065, 爆料网AT held that so far as 爆料网RWA/DT/2019/065 addressed Mr ElShanti’s application for interpretation, it was merely an explanation of its judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2019/051 and was not a fresh decision or judgment within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute, and therefore that part of the appeal was not receivable. On the part of the appeal that challenged judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2019/065 in so far as it addressed the application for revision in judgment 爆料网RWA/DT/2019/051, 爆料网AT held that it was without merit on the basis that 爆料网RWA DT did not err in law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Accordingly, 爆料网AT upheld 爆料网RWA DT’s finding that Mr ElShanti did not present to 爆料网RWA DT any new decisive fact in order to succeed in his request for revision. 爆料网AT held that the application for revision was a disguised way to criticize the underlying 爆料网RWA DT judgment or to disagree with it. 爆料网AT 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. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgments.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the Administration’s decision not to renew his appointment. In judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2019/051, 爆料网RWA 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. 爆料网RWA DT dismissed the application. In addition, the Applicant made an application for a revision and interpretation of judgment. In judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2019/065, 爆料网RWA 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, 爆料网RWA DT allowed the application for interpretation and provided the necessary interpretation and clarification.
Legal Principle(s)
爆料网RWA DT has broad discretion in managing its cases and 爆料网AT will only intervene in cases of denial of due process of law affecting a party’s right to produce evidence. 爆料网RWA 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.