3.
In his application, as stated earlier, the Applicant submitted two
requests; the Court has dealt with the request for interpretation first.
II.
REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION IN TERMS OF RULE 66
4.
The request for interpretation contains the following eight 'points'
seeking the so called interpretation:
a) Paragraph 29 of the judgment in terms of Art 15 of the African
Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Charter):
The Applicant complains that his exhibits "UM Potani" and "UM
HC Appeal " were not referred to in the judgment.
b) Paragraph 29 of the judgment in terms of Art 7 of the Charter:
The Applicant wants the Court to interpret that paragraph and
determine whether or not the Industrial Relations Court of Malawi
violated Art 7 of the Charter and whether or not that Court
violated some provisions of the Constitution of Malawi when it
overruled the High Court of Malawi.
c) Paragraphs 34-40 of the judgment in terms of Art 56(5) of the
Charter:
The Court decided that the Applicant had not exhausted local
remedies while the African Commission of Human and Peoples'
Rights (the Commission) in its 461h Ordinary Session found that
he had done so. So, the Applicant wants the Court to interpret
paragraph 38.2 of the judgment to determine whether or not he
had exhausted local remedies.
d) Paragraph 41 of the judgment in terms of Art 56(7) of the
Charter:
The Applicant wants the Court to determine whether or not it is
still open to him to re-file this case with the Commission since the
Court did not "settle" his case in terms of Art 56(7) of the Charter.
e) Paragraphs 19 and 29 of the Judgment in terms of Art 26 of the
Charter:
The Applicant points out that the Court rejected his legitimate
complaint of the existence of a blood relationship between
Justice Tembo of the Supreme Court of Appeal of Malawi an ~~:::::,.