five copies out of seven copies of various judgments of the courts in Malawi relied upon by the African Court in its judgment dated June 21, 2013”. 14. . It should be noted, from the outset, that Article 28 (3) requires that the process of review other words, such principle of finality must be without prejudice a process may not be of judgments enshrined to Article 28 (2); in used to undermine the in Article 28 (2), which states that there shall be no appeal. It is against this background that the Applicant's application for review must be considered. 14.1. The Applicant inaccurately cites the Court's judgment in respect of both paragraphs of its judgments. reads: Paragraph 27 of the judgment “The Applicant appealed against the above judgment to the High Court as he was not satisfied with it. When the Applicant, who is neither a licensed practitioner nor a lawyer, appeared before the High Court, he wanted to address that court from the Bar where licensed practitioners would do. This was denied to him in terms of the practice before the courts in that country; he was, however, free to argue his case from where people who were not practitioners would do. He however decided not to argue from anywhere else; instead, he decided to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, for the third time”. As far as paragraph 37 of the Judgment is concerned, the contents thereof are not anywhere near what Applicant claims it contains; what he presents as paragraph 37 cannot be located in the judgment. Therefore, while what the Applicant inaccurately presents as ~ paragraph 27 of the judgment at least captures the — substance, what he presents as paragraph 37 is incomprehensible ani is not part of the judgment. alee Zi : se NG eS Ca a 4 A A © : >