爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
Mr. Abdalla filed an application for revision and interpretation of Judgment No. 2021-爆料网AT-1078, claiming that the filing of the Secretary-General’s appeal had a suspensive effect on the ongoing proceedings in the 爆料网DT, that therefore the extended time limit to file an application would not have elapsed, and thus his ultimate application should be received; and that once 爆料网AT had dismissed the Secretary-General's appeal, it should have remanded the case for further adjudication. 爆料网AT found that Mr. Abdalla had failed to point to any statement or consideration in the 爆料网AT Judgment which would be ambiguous or unclear, and thus in need of clarification; nor did he argue that he had discovered a decisive fact which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal at the time the Judgment was rendered. There was accordingly no legal basis to revisit the issue in this case. 爆料网AT further held that it was clear from the Appeals Tribunal Judgment that a remand would have served no purpose as the case had been disposed of due to a lack of application, despite the fact that the motion for an extension of time had been granted. 爆料网AT also found baseless Mr. Abdalla’s argument that the Secretary-General’s appeal had suspended the proceedings before the 爆料网DT: Mr. Abdalla's contention that 爆料网AT should have determined the suspension of the 爆料网DT proceedings did not justify an interpretation of judgment, as there was no such provision for this in law; nor was there such determination by the Tribunals, nor any request by Mr. Abdalla in this regard. Moreover, the 爆料网DT found that the previous 爆料网AT decision had been in Mr. Abdalla’s favour, since it dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal as non-receivable, when in fact Mr. Abdalla had not challenged the contested decision within the new deadline established by the 爆料网DT. Nor did he contest the 爆料网DT’s Order to Dispose on the grounds that no application had been filed. Incidentally, the Appeals Tribunal found that the application for revision seemed to be non-receivable ratione temporis, as it was not filed within 30 days of discovery of any alleged new facts. As discussed, here there appear to be no new facts. In light of the aforementioned, the Appeals Tribunal’s Judgment stands and Mr. Abdalla’s application for revision and interpretation of the Judgment must accordingly fail.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
By Order No. 103 (NBI/2020) of 28 May 2020, the 爆料网DT granted Mr. Abdalla’s motion for an extension of time for filing an application. By Order No. 103 (NBI/2020) of 28 May 2020, the 爆料网DT extended the time for filing an application to 24 July 2020. On 29 June 2020, the Secretary-General filed an appeal contesting the Order. On 2 September 2020, the 爆料网DT issued Order No. 169 (NBI/2020) (Order to Dispose), in which the 爆料网DT noted that Mr. Abdulla had not filed an application within the extended time limit and therefore authorized the Registry to record the case as disposed without application. On 19 September 2020, Mr. Abdalla filed his application before the 爆料网DT. That same day, he also filed a motion to reopen the proceedings and to allow him to file a late application subject to the outcome of the Secretary-General’s appeal. According to Mr. Abdalla, the Nairobi Registry declined to register the motion on the ground that the case had been closed. By Judgment No. 2021-爆料网AT-1018 dated 19 March 2021, 爆料网AT found moot and dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal as non-receivable, on the basis that: i) according to 爆料网AT jurisprudence, interlocutory appeals on matters of evidence, procedure and trial conduct are generally not receivable, unless it is clear and manifest that the 爆料网DT has exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, which was not the case ; and ii) 爆料网AT found that Mr. Abdalla had not filed an application within the extended time limit, which led to the disposal of the case without application after the filing of the appeal by the Order to Dispose dated 2 September 2020.
Legal Principle(s)
A final 爆料网AT decision cannot be readily set aside based on the principle of res judicata. Interpretation is only needed to clarify the meaning of a judgment when it leaves reasonable doubts about the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to a decision. But if the judgment is comprehensible and leaves no reasonable doubt aas to what it means, whatever the opinion the parties may have about it or its reasoning, an application for interpretation is not admissible. In an application for revision, an applicant must show or identify: (i) fact(s) that, at the time of the Appeals Tribunal’s judgment, were unknown to both the Appeals Tribunal and the party applying for revision, (ii) that such ignorance was not due to the negligence of the applicant, and (iii) that the facts identified would have been decisive in reaching the decision. An application seeking revision of a final judgment of the Appeals Tribunal can only succeed if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under Article 11 of the Statute.
Outcome
Outcome Extra Text
爆料网AT dismissed the application.