The dismissal was held to be fair, and the action dismissed. 27. The Applicant appealed against the above judgment to the High Court as he was not satisfied with it. When the Applicant, who is neither a licensed practitioner nor a lawyer, appeared before the High Court, he wanted to address that court from the Bar where licensed practitioners would do. This was denied to him in terms of the practice before the courts in that country; he was, however, free to argue his case from where people who were not practitioners would do. He however decided not to argue from anywhere else; instead, he decided to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, for the third time. 28. The Applicant's appeal was enrolled and heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal, and judgment was delivered on 11 October 2007. The judgment summarizes the Applicant's grounds of appeal into two. Firstly, ((that his employment is terminated unlawfully since he was not given the opportunity to be heard by the University Disciplinary Committee to refute the allegations made against him, and secondly that he was not allowed to address the judge in the High Court in order to argue his appeal because he was not a licensed legal practitioner". Regarding the first ground, the Malawi Supreme Court of Appeal held that the matter was res judicata and it could therefore not consider the point again; it referred to its judgment of 12 July 2004, already referred to and quoted above. In that judgment, the Supreme Court of Appeal had held, inter alia , that for this claim of unlawful dismissal, qased on a breach of the rule of natural justice, the Applicant should have approached the Court by stating ~~the issue in the pleadings as a separate [13] ustz. of action. In 11