evidence should have been adduced before the award of damages in the respondent's favour. Counsel
concluded by stating that both local and international decisions support the view that evidence should be
led before the award of damages.
4. In response, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the application is incompetent and should
be dismissed with heavy costs. Counsel stated that the applicants were ably represented in the entire
proceedings in the substantive matter and were aware of any defect in the case but these are not new facts
for the reason that counsel for the applicants was always in court and took an active part in the entire
proceedings. It is therefore untenable for the applicants to claim that any issue with respect to the trial is a
new fact. Counsel argued that under Article 92 of the Rules of the Court the applicants had three months
from the date on which judgment was given to file the application for review since their grounds for the
review are all procedural in nature. Counsel concluded that this review application was filed out of time as
judgment was delivered in January 2009 and the review application was filed in July 2009, without the
applicants filing an application for extension of time.
5. Learned counsel to the applicants in reply stated that the application was brought within five years so it
was properly brought under the Protocol A/P1/7/91 and contended that the issues raised are fundamental
to justice in that evidence was not led before the award of damages. Counsel stated that there seems to be
a conflict between Protocol A/P1/7/91 and the Court's Rules and concluded that the Protocol is superior to
the Rules so in the event of a conflict the Protocol prevails.
6. An application for review of a judgment/decision of this Court is governed principally by Article 25 of the
Protocol on the Court of Justice (A/P1/7/91) and Article 92 of the Rules of the Court. The relevant portions
thereof read thus:
Article 25 of the Protocol
1. An application for revision of a decision may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some
fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the decision was given, unknown to
the Court and also to the party claiming revision, provided always that such ignorance was not due to
negligence.
4. No application for revision may be made after five (5) years from the date of decision.
Article 92 of the Rules of Court:
An application for revision of a judgment shall be made within three months of the date on which the facts
on which the application is based came to the applicant's knowledge.
7. A critical reading of the articles 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 a review must be made within five years of the delivery of the 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 new
fact/facts upon which his application is based.
c. An application for a review must be premised on the discovery of new 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.
8. Therefore, a party wishing to succeed with an application for review must satisfy these three conditions
above. Learned counsel to the applicants stated that there seems to be a conflict between Article 25 of
Protocol A/P1/7/91 which requires review applications to be filed within five years of the delivery of the
judgment / decision which is sought to be reviewed and Article 92 of the Rules of the Court which requires
parties to file their application for review within three months upon coming into knowledge of the facts on
which the review application is based. However, there is no conflict between the two provisions at all. In
fact Article 92 of the Rules of the Court is complementary to Article 25 of Protocol A/P1/7/91. Article 25 of
the Protocol requires parties to apply for review within five years of the delivery of the judgment/decision in
2