- 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.”