-8 b. In short, there are no new facts and therefore in contravention of
Article 25 of the Protocol A/P1/7/91 of the Community Court of Justice.
c. Abuse of Court process by the filing of this Application on
repetitive issues for interpretation and revision of the same
Judgment without more.
2. Legal argument: the Defendants/Respondents cited Article 25 (1) of the
Protocol A/P1/7/91of the Community Court of Justice provides: “an
application for revision for a decision may be made only when it is based
upon the discovery of some facts 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”.
3. Article 25(2) of the said Protocol provides: The proceeding for revision shall
be opened by a decision of the Court expressly recording (a) the existence
of the new fact, recognizing that it has such (b) a character as to lay the case
open to revision and declaring (c) the application admissible on the ground.
The Defendants/Respondents submit that the Plaintiff/Applicant has not
revealed any new facts of such a nature as to be a decisive factor warranting
any interpretation or to review Judgment of this Honorable Court.
4. The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents submit and say that issues raised by
the Plaintiff/Applicant are not new, but the same issues pleaded in her
Pleadings and Judgment given on the same and therefore are not new or even
of any decisive factor as required by Article 25.
5. The Defendants/Respondents submit that what the Plaintiff/Applicant is
trying to achieve is a retrial of the same issues by virtue of this Application
calling upon the Court to sit on an appeal of its own judgment.
6. It is the submission of the Defendants/Respondents that the failure to comply
with a condition precedent to the institution of an action before this court
makes the application incompetent and inadmissible. They maintained that the
condition for revision is based entirely on the discovery of new and decisive
facts which must not have been considered during the trial or the hearing of
the suit and such ignorance was not out of negligence.