While the instant application fulfills the first and second conditions above, it is pertinent to establish whether or not the facts relied upon are new facts within the contemplation of the above provisions or whether such facts were in existence but not pleaded due to the negligence of the Applicants. The issue as to when a particular fact came within the knowledge of the Applicant is a question of fact to be determined by the Court after carefully considering all the information available to it. It is submitted that the facts upon which the Applicant hinge their argument is one which existed prior to the institution of the substantive application leading to this application for review. From the facts before this Court, the alleged issue of misrepresentation or fraud was within the knowledge of the Applicants before judgment. However, Applicants failed to plead it. The Applicants in their application also admitted having knowledge of the fraud and bringing same to the notice of the Respondent on the 10th of April 2015. That being the case, the ground for review does not fall within the contemplation of Article 25 above. Considering the implication of executing an agreement, it is implied that parties to a valid contract agreement have gone through each and every term contained therein and are satisfied with same before appending their signatures to be legally bound. The issuance of a Job Completion Certificate by the Applicant to the Respondent is also a clear indication of satisfaction. 7