Rule 67 (1) of the Rules reads: “Pursuant to Article 28 (3) of the Protocol, a party may apply to the Court to review its judgment in the event of the discovery of evidence, which was not within the knowledge of the party at the time the judgment was delivered. Such application shall be filed within six (6) months after the party acquired knowledge of the evidence so discovered”. 12. An Applicant must therefore show in the Application “the discovery of evidence, which was not within the knowledge of the party at the time the judgment was delivered’. 13. In his application, the Applicant purports to quote two portions of the Court's judgment, which he claims constitute, as he puts it, “new piece of information”. 13.1. Firstly, he claims that the first “piece of information” is “presented” in paragraph 27 of the judgment, which he inaccurately quotes as follows: “In Malawi there is a law or custom which precluded a litigant who is not a licensed practitioner or a lawyer to address the Court from the Bar and when | appealed in the High Court against the decision of the Industrial Relations Court, | reneged (sic) to ague (sic) my appeal from anywhere else but decided to filed (sic) by appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Industrial Relations Court’. 13.2. Secondly, he says that the next “new piece of information” is -—~ “presented” in paragraph 37 of the judgment, which, he agai oe inaccurately quotes as follows: a . “| was the one who curtailed the itinerary of the recourse [ my case to the national courts in Malawi by submitting . z ’ Ar MC a @& , 6 Q _e