Party v Republic of Liberia (ECW/CCJ/APP/64/21/REV; ECW/CCJ/JUD/47/25) [2025] ECOWASCJ 44 (19 November 2025)

Party v Republic of Liberia (ECW/CCJ/APP/64/21/REV; ECW/CCJ/JUD/47/25) [2025] ECOWASCJ 44 (19 November 2025)

The application for revision is inadmissible because the Applicant failed to present any new facts of a decisive nature unknown at the time of the original judgment, as required by Article 25 of the Protocol and Article 92 of the Rules of the Court. The Applicant's arguments merely seek to challenge the Court's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ECOWASCJ 44
Parties
Applicant: True Whig Party; Respondent: Republic of Liberia
Court
ECOWAS Community Court of Justice
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
19 November 2025
Case Number
ECW/CCJ/APP/64/21/REV ; ECW/CCJ/JUD/47/25
Procedural Posture
Application for Revision of Judgment / Judgment
Outcome
Application for revision declared inadmissible
Legal Topics
Revision of Judgment, Fair Hearing, Right to Property, Admissibility Criteria
Source Language
english
International Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Revision of Judgment Fair Hearing Right to Property Admissibility Criteria

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

True Whig Party

Applicant

Republic of Liberia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Revision of Judgment / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for revision meets the requirements under Article 25 of the Protocol and Articles 92 and 93 of the Rules of the Court
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant has discovered new facts justifying revision of the judgment
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant's right to a fair hearing and property was violated

Ratio Decidendi

The application for revision is inadmissible because the Applicant failed to present any new facts of a decisive nature unknown at the time of the original judgment, as required by Article 25 of the Protocol and Article 92 of the Rules of the Court. The Applicant's arguments merely seek to challenge the Court's prior legal conclusions, which is not permissible under the revision procedure.

Court Disposition

Application for revision declared inadmissible

Orders

  • Court has jurisdiction to determine the case
  • Application is inadmissible