declaring the issue as res judicata, the Supreme Court of Appeal was in effect maintaining the view it had taken in its judgment of 12 July 2004. 29. To bolster his case regarding the alleged violation of Article 7 of the Charter, the Applicant made several unsubstantiated allegations against some of the judges, some of which allegations repeating here. He alleged, for example, Supreme of Appeal students Court who had lodged was the not worthy of that one of the judges of the biological complaints are against father him. of one During of the the hearing and in response to a question by this Court, counsel for the Respondent pointed out that the allegation was not true; the Applicant was unable to dispute this. Again, without any substantiation, the Applicant ascribed prejudice against Judges and the Registrar, and in some instances, used unbecoming language in criticizing some judgments. Respondent’s case 30. Preliminary Points: The Respondent has raised two preliminary points. 30.1 The first point relates to the admissibility of the application, namely, that the application is not admissible as the matter is already before the Commission, and therefore that it is sub judice before the latter. In this respect, Respondent argues that it would be undesirable to allow litigants some forum shopping. Cc > se SS ae [14] | =e 4 cd 3 ZY an c ME ae >“D> C* e = @