Both applications are inadmissible because the interpretation request does not concern the dispositif and the revision request does not present any new evidence unknown at the time of the original judgment.
The applicant's requests for interpretation and revision did not meet the substantive requirements of the Protocol and Rules, as the interpretation request did not relate to the operative part of the judgment and the alleged new evidence for revision was neither new nor unknown at the time of judgment. Both requests were therefore inadmissible and dismissed.
The Court of Appeal struck out an application to revise its own prior appellate judgment, holding that its revision powers do not extend to revising its own decisions.
The Court of Appeal of Tanzania held it had no jurisdiction to revise its own appellate judgment and struck out the revision application as incompetent.