- 12 - 8.1.3. In the Originating Application and its Summary, both filed July 4, 2014, the Applicant has listed eleven (11) counts in which she outlined what she termed as Contradictions in this Court’s previous Rulings/Judgments. See pages 9-15 (nine to fifteen) of the Originating Application – Document number 1A, and pages 2-4 (two to four) of the Summary – Document number 1B. Additionally, the Applicant has enumerated 9 (nine) counts containing what she has called Omitted Orders, which she now requests this Court to issue. See pages 22 – 23 (twenty-two – twenty-three) of the Originating Application – Doc. 1A and pages 6 - 7 (six-seven) of the Summary – Doc. 1B. 8.1.4. A careful review of the initial Application and all other documents requesting relief by the Applicant, it is observed that all these claims/issues were indeed raised and included in the submission made to the Court for its determination. The Court has passed on the issues and rendered Rulings/Judgments and made awards to the Applicant. It is observed that the subsequent filing of this instant Application is only to show that the Plaintiff is/was not satisfied with the Court decision and seeks to have the Court reverse/review its earlier decision and rule in the manner the Applicant would have the Court to do. This is reprehensible and unacceptable to say the least. 8.1.5. This Court does not sit in an appellate jurisdiction and thereby subject its decisions to review/reversal; this is a trial court, from which there is no appeal. The framers of the law determined that the Court, being made up of mortals as judges, would have the occasion to re-consider its decision if it believes that it has made some palpable error, but that is not a license for litigants to question the wisdom of the Court by challenging the decisions of the Court and pressurizing the Court to change its position simply because the party involved does not like or agree with a position which has been taken by the Court. That was not the purpose for which Article 25 was inserted in the Protocol on the Community Court of Justice. 8.1.6. More besides, there has to be an end to litigation; the Court cannot indulge litigants to importune the Court with endless litigation simply because they do not agree with the position adopted or assumed by the Court on an issue. It is not for the party to insist on the Court ruling in a certain way only to satisfy that party before the case can end.