On Friday 28 March 2014, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights delivered a Ruling in respect of consolidated Application 001/2013: Urban Mkandawire v. The Republic of Malawi: Application for Review of Judgment and Application for Interpretation of Judgment.
Following the Court Judgment on 21 June 2013 in Application 003/2011: Urban Mkandawire v. The Republic of Malawi, the Applicant, Mr. Urban Mkandawire, seized the Court with an Application for Review and Interpretation of the Judgment.
In its Ruling of 28 March 2014, the Court held that the Application for interpretation of Judgment could not be entertained because interpretation of a judgment can only be sought from the Court "for the purpose of executing" the judgment. In the case in question, the judgment dismissed the Application on the grounds that local remedies had not been exhausted, and thus imposed no positive obligation capable of being executed. Therefore, there cannot be an application for interpretation of the judgment in terms of Article 28(4) of the Protocol as read together with Rule 66 of the Rules since there is no execution that is possible under the judgment of the Court.
Concerning the Application for review, the Court found that the Applicant inaccurately cited the Court's judgment in respect of two paragraphs of its judgments for which he was seeking review. Furthermore, what the Applicant presented as "new piece of information" was in fact neither new, nor "evidence" as contemplated in Article 28 (3) of the Protocol, or Rule 67 (1) of the Rules, as it purported to be the findings of the Court, contained in its judgment. The new evidence contemplated by the above-mentioned Article and Rules is evidence which was not previously known by the party concerned at the time of Judgment. Nothing contained in the Applicant's submissions constituted any "evidence" which was not known to the party at the time the Court handed down its judgment.
Therefore, the Court concluded that the request contained in the Application for the review of the Court's judgment of June 2013 was inadmissible and was struck out.