It is trite that ignorance is not an excuse in law. Parties must have made significant findings of facts upon which to hinge their argument which was unknown to them, and the Court at the time the decision of the Court was made without relying on existing facts to over burden the court. A party must necessarily meet the requirements for review in order to succeed, and the Court has little or no discretion in this regard. The provisions of the Protocol and Rules of Court are clear and unambiguous. It is submitted that the facts upon which the Applicant based its submissions for review are not new facts in line with the provisions of Article 25. The facts were within the knowledge of the Applicants who by their ignorance and negligence waived their rights by failing to take all reasonable and necessary steps to plead them right from the start so to ameliorate the situation. It is trite that equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent. It is axiomatic that the Defendants from the beginning of this case has shown complete indiligence in pursuing this matter. First they inserted a penalty clause in a contract they are in breach as if that is not enough, they filed a purported defence after the expiration of the period of time allowed by the rules. Furthermore, assuming that the Defence is admissible, they merely admitted the claim. In all these circumstances the conduct of the Defendants is not fair to the Community at large. 9