12. After its hearing on February 7th, 2020, the Court delivered Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUG/13/2020 on July 8th, 2020, served on the Applicants' counsel on July 14th, 2020, by DHL mail. 13. The Court rejected all claims of the parties, stating that: “The Defendant has not violated the property right. The Applicants have failed to prove their property rights over the disputed properties.” It dismissed all other reliefs sought which were depending on whether the violation of the property right was established”. 14. That it is following this decision that they present an application for Revision of Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUG/13/2020 based on the following grounds: 15. They became aware of the first ground for the Revision on July 29th, 2020, the day they were able to determine that Defendant never presented to the Court the title deed No. 18. 16. That they took cognizance of the second and third grounds for Revision on July 14th, 2020, the day they were notified, by letter, of the Court's Judgment and obtained new evidence on the third ground for Revision on September 9th, 2020. 17. They concluded then that the application was submitted within the prescribed time limit. 18. And, among the alleged grounds for Revision, they invoke: a. The lack of communication of Title Deed No. 18 19. To support their claim, they allege that: 20. In its Judgment, the Court declares that the Applicants' property right is challenged by a "title deed presented by the state." 21. According to the investigator hired by the Applicants, this title deed is not included in the process; apparently, the Court based its Judgment on something neither it nor the Applicants have ever seen. On the other hand, if 5