- 18 9.14. The Court thus concluded that the facts as presented by the Applicant, Mrs.
Tokumbo Lijadu Oyemade, in her application for revision of Judgment No.
ECW/CCJ/APP/JUD/02/08 of 4 June 2008, were not new facts. Nor could they
have exerted any decisive influence on the decision already made by the Court (s49).
9.15. The Court decided in its Judgment of 3 June 2010 in the case, Federal
Republic of Nigeria and Others vs Djot Bayi Talbia, that the Application for
revision was deposited outside the time-limit, and adjudged that even if the
Application had been submitted within the prescribed time frame, it still would not
contain any new facts and could not exert any decisive influence on the decision
made by the Court on 28 January 2009.
9.16. The Court held as follows in the Judgment of 12 March 2012 in the case,
Isabelle Manavi Amaganvi and Others vs Republic of Togo:
“…the Court finds that…it has adjudicated exhaustively upon the
matter brought before it for determination (s16)…the Court declares
that the presumed omission to adjudicate on the issue of reinstatement,
as brought by the Applicants, has no grounds…(s19).”
9.17. The Court equally declared in its Judgment of 3 July 2009 in the case, Mrs.
Tokumbo Lijadu Oyemade, supra, that it was not unaware of the content and
meaning of the notice served by the Director of BCEAO of Niger at the moment it
was delivering its judgment of 12 December 2012, which revision had been
requested (s28), and that pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Protocol on the Court, the
application for revision as submitted by the Republic of Niger was inadmissible
(s29).”
10. DECISION
The Court, adjudicating in a public sitting, after hearing both parties, in last resort,
after deliberating in accordance with the law;