The dismissal was held to be fair, and the action dismissed. 27. The Applicant appealed against the above judgment to the High Court as he was not satisfied with it. When the Applicant, who is neither a licensed practitioner nor a lawyer, appeared before the High Court, he wanted to address that court from the Bar where licensed practitioners would do. courts This was denied to him in terms of the practice before the in that country; he was, however, free to argue his case from where people who were not practitioners would do. He however decided not to argue from anywhere else; instead, he decided to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, for the third time. 28. The Applicant’s appeal was enrolled and heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal, and judgment was delivered on 11 October 2007. The judgment summarizes the Applicant’s grounds of appeal into two. Firstly, “that his employment is terminated unlawfully since he was not given the opportunity to be heard by the University refute the allegations made allowed to address first ground, the Malawi was res judicata and Committee to against him, and secondly that he was not the judge in the High appeal because he was not a Disciplinary Court in order to argue his licensed legal practitioner’. Regarding the Supreme Court of Appeal it could therefore held that the matter not consider the point again; it referred to its judgment of 12 July 2004, already referred to and quoted above. In that judgment, alia, that for this claim the Supreme of unlawful Court of Appeal dismissal, based had held, inter on a breach of the rule of natural justice, the Applicant should have approached the Court by stating “the issue in the pleadings as a separate. Cause of action.” tn (13]