IV.7- Article 64.1 of the Rules of the Community Court of Justice confines the
action to redress an omission to give ruling on whether a single head of claim
or on costs, within a months of service of the judgment being attacked;
IV.8- The applicant argued not to have been actually informed of the existence
of the judgment dated 6 March 2014 until 10 July 2014 when he submitted to
the Court a correspondence on the fate of the procedure, that “after having
exercised his action by his request dated 18 July 2014, eight (08) days after his
correspondence, he felt to be on time;
IV.9- Article 32.3 of the Rules provides: “All pleadings shall bear a date. In the
reckoning of time limits for taking steps in proceedings, only the date of
lodgement at the Registry shall be taken into account”.
IV.10- It then appears that for this case, the counting of the period for
exercising the appeal had to start from the service of the judgment and to end
on the date of registration of the appeal by the Registry;
IV.11- If the date of registration of Mr AMOUSSOU’s appeal by the Registry is
not subject to any challenge, that of the service of the judgment remains
unknown;
IV.12- But, obviously, for a judgment delivered on 6 March 2014, challenged by
a motion dated 18 July 2014 but was only received in the Registry of the Court
on 23 September 2014, the deadline set by the provisions of Article 64 of the
Rules has expired for long;
IV.13- In fact, the date on which the application of Mr AMOUSSOU is supposed
to have been written which is to say, 18 July 2014 (which supposes that service
was made to him) to that of its registration at the Registry of this Court i.e. 23
September 2014, it took more than two (02) months that is more than the time
limit allotted by Article 64 of the Rules for successful applications; It follows
therefore that the debate surrounding the date of notification no longer serves
any purpose;
IV.14- Moreover, it is for Mr AMOUSSOU to prove in compliance with the law
that his appeal is admissible to act within the time prescribed by the Rule;
He was unable and did not justify the benefit of the extension of time provided
for in Article 64.2 of the Rule;
8