- 17 9.13. (a) Before International Courts and Tribunals other than the ECOWAS Court • The Administrative Tribunal of the United nations, in its Judgment on Bulsara vs. The Secretary General of the United Nations, dated 5 December 1959, held that applications seeking a decision different from what has already been delivered, or contesting the validity of such a judgment, are inadmissible for the purposes of revision where the discovery of a new fact is a requirement. • The Administrative Tribunal of the World Bank, in its Judgment on Van Gent vs IBRD, dated 6 September 1983, decided that applications contesting a previous judgment, its validity or soundness, are inadmissible when brought as requests for revision. • The Treaty for Conciliation, Judicial Settlements and Arbitration signed on 7 July 1965 between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Switzerland, in its Article 35, states that: “An application for revision of a judicial decision or arbitral award 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 judicial decision or arbitral award was given, unknown to the International Court of Justice or the Arbitral Tribunal.” 9.13 (b) Before the ECOWAS Court The Court held as follows in the Judgment of 17 November 2009 in the case, Mrs. Tokumbo Lijadu Oyemade vs ECOWAS Council of Ministers and Others: “The existence of new facts presupposes that the party requesting the revision may not have been informed of these facts, but also that these facts should be of a nature as to exert a decisive influence on the decision made by the Court (s45)….These allegations are however not backed by evidence. The newness of a fact cannot be understood in the sense of a mere allegation, but must repose on proven, real and verified facts…(s48).”