Â鶹´«Ã½

UNDT/2012/137

View PDF

UNDT/2012/137, Luvai

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

A judgment must be uncertain or ambiguous to be open to interpretation by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that paragraph 19 of the judgment was an obiter observation by the Tribunal and did not have a bearing on the reasoning or outcome of the final judgment. The Tribunal found that paragraph 19 was neither uncertain nor ambiguous. The Tribunal held that Article 12.3 must not be used to re-open proceedings, and this is what the Applicant had attempted to do.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant applied to the Tribunal for ‘interpretation and direction to both Parties in regards to Paragraph 19 of judgment UNDT/2010/166.’ to do.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome
Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full judgment
Applicants/Appellants
Luvai
Entity
UNON
Case Number(s)
UNDT/NBI/2012/27
Tribunal
UNDT
Registry
Nairobi
Date of Judgement
Duty Judge
Judge Shaw
Language of Judgment
English
Issuance Type
Judgment
Categories/Subcategories
Judgment-related matters
Interpretation of Judgment
Applicable Law
UNDT Statute
Related Judgments and Orders
UNDT/2012/106