- 13 8.1.7. Looking to the jurisprudence of this Court, the decision in this case is
controlled by and finds total support in this Court’s Ruling in the case, Musa
Saidykhan vs. The Republic of The Gambia, Case No. ECW/CCJ/APP/11/07,
Ruling No. ECW/CCJ/APP/RUL/03/12, delivered 7th February 2012. The legal
issue, the legal reasoning, and the entire disposition of this case is wholly analogous
to this instant case, because of which we shall quote the relevant portion the Court’s
Ruling in the cited case.
“ 12. A critical reading of the provisions quoted above indicates that there are three
conditions precedent to a successful application for review of a judgment/decision
of this Court. The three conditions are as follows:
a. An application for review must be made within five years of the delivery
of the judgment/decision which is sought to be reviewed.
b. The party applying for a review must file his application within three
months of his discovering the fact/facts upon which his application is
based.
c. An application for a review must be premised on the discovery of facts
that are of a decisive nature, which facts were unknown to the Court or
the party claiming revision provided that such ignorance was not due to
negligence.
“13. Thus, for an application for review to succeed in this Court, the party making
the application should satisfy all these three conditions precedent…”
The Court, in the cited case, applied each of the three criteria to the facts of the
application for revision and came out with its findings and conclusion. The Court
continued in the cited as follows:
“17. A careful reading of Article 25 of Protocol A/P1/7/91 reveals clearly that facts
contemplated by the said Article are facts that were in existence at the time of the
decision but were unknown to both the Court and the party claiming revision. It also
reveals that the facts in question are facts that could have had a decisive influence
on the judgment. Can a judgment of the Court be said to be a fact that could have
had a decisive influence on that same judgment? The answer is obviously in the
negative. Again, can one say a judgment of the Court is a fact that was in existence
before that same judgment was delivered? The answer is certainly not in the
affirmative.”