爆料网

Revision of Judgment

  • Appeals of final judgments
  • Correction of judgment
  • Correction of Judgment
  • Execution of Judgment
  • Execution of judgment
  • Execution of judgment
  • Interpretation of Judgment
  • Revision of Judgment
  • Revision of judgment
  • Revision of judgment
    • Showing 31 - 40 of 93
    2011-爆料网AT-128, Macharia

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-015 by Ms. Macharia. 爆料网AT held that Ms. Macharia provided no evidence upon which it could infer that there was bias or likelihood of bias on the part of Judge Izuako. 爆料网AT held that, with regard to the Legal Officer who allegedly had a personal friendship with Judge Boolell, there was no evidence for it to draw the conclusion that the Legal Officer influenced the proceedings or the 爆料网DT Judge in her decision. 爆料网AT held that Ms. Macharia did not offer any evidence in support of her bare assertions casting serious doubt on the...

    2011-爆料网AT-127, Luvai

    爆料网AT considered the application for revision of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-014 by Mr Luvai. 爆料网AT considered the allegation that the Legal Officer who was assigned to the case before 爆料网DT was a Facebook “friend” of Judge Boolell, the then 爆料网DT President, and of a few other people who could have been tangentially involved in the issues of the underlying dispute and that Judge Boolell somehow influenced the judge sitting on the instant case to rule improperly. 爆料网AT held that Mr Luvai offered not a shred of proof of anything improper. 爆料网AT denied the application.

    2011-爆料网AT-102, Muthuswami et al.

    The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-爆料网AT-034. 爆料网AT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. 爆料网AT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.

    2013-爆料网AT-317, El Khatib

    爆料网AT considered Mr El Khatib’s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-142. 爆料网AT held that Mr El Khatib did not identify any fact unknown at the time of the impugned judgment which could justify its review. 爆料网AT held that what he actually sought was a discussion of the amount of compensation awarded to him, an option not granted by the Statute. 爆料网AT held that the petition did not meet the statutory requirements. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.

    2013-爆料网AT-393, Applicant

    爆料网AT considered the Applicant’s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-爆料网AT-209. 爆料网AT held that the request filed by the Applicant constituted a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, a recourse against a final judgment that is not provided for in the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the issuance of another judgment during the same session as which the Applicant’s case was decided did not constitute a new fact, but rather law and that there was no possibility for a revision based on law. 爆料网AT held that the application was submitted almost one year...

    2013-爆料网AT-392, Maghari

    爆料网AT considered Mr Maghari’s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-039. 爆料网AT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT held that the grounds filed did not fall within Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and did not constitute a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, known to 爆料网AT and to the party applying for revision. 爆料网AT held that Mr Maghari merely disagreed with the 爆料网AT decision and sought to reargue his appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.

    2013-爆料网AT-356, Massah

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment. 爆料网AT held that the alleged error in the factual findings of 爆料网DT did not constitute circumstances that warranted revision, because none of them would result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by 爆料网AT in vacating the 爆料网DT judgment and affirming Mr Massah’s separation from service for serious misconduct. 爆料网AT held that the application was inadmissible since its goal was to litigate the case de novo as a result of counsel not agreeing with the final judgment, an option which was not provided to the parties by the applicable law...

    2013-爆料网AT-353, Obdeijn

    爆料网AT considered Mr Obdeijn’s application for revision of judgment in respect of judgment No. 2012-爆料网AT-201. 爆料网AT held that Mr Obdeijn’s submissions were irrelevant as they did not meet the requirements set out in the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that Mr Obdeijn’s failure to submit evidence of alleged economic loss during the proceedings before both Tribunals did not constitute a newly discovered decisive fact warranting a revision of judgment. 爆料网AT held that Mr Obdeijn could not rely on 爆料网AT’s inherent jurisdiction to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by the 爆料网AT Statute from a rule based on...