Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2014/017. UNAT noted that judgment No. 2013-UNAT-963 was a final judgment and therefore the Appellant’s case was res judicata, which meant that the Appellant was precluded from raising his claim again. UNAT held that UNRWA DT made no error in finding the Appellant’s application manifestly inadmissible and dismissing it without referring it to the Commissioner-General. UNAT held as unsustainable the Appellant’s claim that UNRWA DT erred in law when it considered his application was an application against judgment No. 2013-UNAT-363. UNAT held that the Appellant had no locus standi to bring the appeal and dismissed it. Noting that it had no doubt that the Appellant fully understood the legal effect of the previous decision of UNAT, and that the Appellant continued to defy the judgments of both UNRWA DT and UNAT that his claim was not receivable, UNAT held that the Appellant manifestly abused the appeals process by deliberately filing an appeal that was blatantly frivolous and vexatious. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General had made his case for an order for costs against the Appellant. UNAT dismissed the appeal, affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment, awarded costs of USD 9,600 against the Appellant and directed the UNAT Registrar not to accept any filing from the Appellant until such costs were paid.