��DT/2011/202

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

Execution of ��AdT judgments: The ��AdT had, and by virtue of the transfer of cases to it, the ��DT has, power to order execution of judgments of the former ��AdT just as it has power to deal with applications for execution under its own Statute and Rules. Time limit for applying for execution of judgment: no time limit is set out in the rules and no party should be without a remedy where execution of judgments is in issue. In this case the Applicant had done all he could to bring the matter to early resolution, it was not his fault that his earlier requests had been ignored. Damages for non-execution: this is a distinct head of damage to the moral injury caused by the original defamation. The ��DT found that all aspects of the Applicant��s claim relating to defamation is res judicata, but the application for execution was receivable ratione materiae as, even though the ��AdT did not consider it had the power to deal with requests for execution of judgments, that power was inherent and by virtue of the transfer of the case to the subject matter is receivable. As the ��AdT statute was silent as to applications for execution, no time limit is prescribed. Even where the ��DT statute specifically allows for such applications, no time limit is prescribed. A party benefiting from a judgment in his favour must be entitled to apply to the court where the other party has failed to comply with the terms of the judgment. In this case, the Applicant raised such a request in a timely manner with the ��AdT but it was ignored. A person in the Applicant��s position cannot be without remedy. Applying articles 19 and 36, the Tribunal considers the Application receivable ratione temporis.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant had successfully brought a claim before the ��AdT in relation to the non-renewal of his contract, his being placed on special leave without pay, and defamatory remarks made about him by a spokesman of the Secretary-General at a press conference in 1997. In the present application, he makes an application for execution of judgment.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

Outcome Extra Text

Application for an order for execution granted. (i) Respondent to execute Judgment No. 1029 by holding a press briefing in which his Spokesman gives the particulars of both Judgment No. 1029 and the present Judgment, within one month following the date on which the present Judgment becomes executable. (ii) Damages in the sum of $10,000 awarded. Respondent ordered to hold a press briefing on the subject of Judgment No. 1029 of the ��AdT.

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��AT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Bangoura

Entity

��DCP

Case Number(s)

��DT/NBI/2010/001/��AT/1054

Tribunal

��DT

Registry

Nairobi

Date of Judgement