declaring the ~issue as res judicata, the Supreme Court of Appeal was in effect maintaining the view it had taken in its judgment of 12 July 2004. 29. To bolster his case regarding the alleged violation of Article 7 of the Charter, the Applicant made several unsubstantiated allegations against some of the judges, some of which allegations are not worthy of repeating here. He alleged, for example, that one of the judges of the Supreme Court of Appeal was the biological father of one of the students who had lodged complaints against him. During the hearing and in response to a question by this Court, counsel for the Respondent pointed out that the allegation was not true; the Applicant was unable to dispute this. Again , without any substantiat~ion, the Applicant ascribed prejudice against Judges and the Registrar, and in some instances, used unbecoming language in criticizing some judgments. Respondent's case 30. Preliminary Points: The Respondent has raised two preliminary points. 30.1 The first point relates to the admissibility of the application , namely, that the application is not admissible as the matter is already before the Commission, and therefore that it is sub judice before the latter. In this respect, Respondent argues that it would be undesirable to allow litigants some forum shopping. [14] ¥7· Lt A(£ ;::: c7~ ~