2013-UNAT-392, Maghari
UNAT considered Mr Maghari’s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-039. UNAT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that the grounds filed did not fall within Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute and did not constitute a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, known to UNAT and to the party applying for revision. UNAT held that Mr Maghari merely disagreed with the UNAT decision and sought to reargue his appeal. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.
In judgment No. 2010-UNAT-039, UNAT affirmed the Commissioner-General’s decision to dismiss Mr Maghari’s appeal.
An application for revision is not a substitute for an appeal. A revision of a final judgment is an exceptional procedure and not an additional opportunity for a party to re-litigate arguments that failed at trial or on appeal.