爆料网

Abolition of post

  • Alternative appointment
  • Nomination alternative
  • Priority consideration
  • Termination
  • Test 123
    • Showing 51 - 60 of 206
    2017-爆料网AT-750, Kagizi et al.

    爆料网AT consolidated the 51 appeals into seven groups heard by seven judicial panels, the first group (Kagizi et al. judgment No. 爆料网DT/2016/131) being heard by the full bench. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeals. 爆料网AT confirmed 爆料网DT’s finding that the appellants lacked standing to challenge the non-renewal of their appointments in so far as they were deemed to be a direct challenge against the General Assembly’s decision to abolish the posts. 爆料网AT noted that, while in other aspects, 爆料网DT regarded the applications as receivable and dealt with the merits of the case, those findings were not substantially...

    2017-爆料网AT-759, Hassanin

    爆料网AT vacated 爆料网DT’s compensation orders in the cases in which staff members had secured alternative employment, finding that the applications had become moot. In the remaining cases, 爆料网AT considered that any permanent staff member facing termination due to abolition of post must show an interest in a new position (for which he or she is suitable and qualified) by timely and completely applying for that position. However, once the application process is completed, the Administration is required by Staff Rule 13. 1(d) to consider the permanent staff member on a preferred or non-competitive basis...

    2017-爆料网AT-756, Nkashama et al.

    爆料网AT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore 爆料网AT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgments.

    2017-爆料网AT-755, Ramazani et al.

    爆料网AT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore 爆料网AT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgments.

    2017-爆料网AT-754, Kisubi et al.

    爆料网AT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore 爆料网AT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgments.

    2017-爆料网AT-753, Kiluwe et al.

    爆料网AT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore 爆料网AT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgments.

    2017-爆料网AT-752, Baguma et al.

    爆料网AT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and 爆料网AT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgments.

    2017-爆料网AT-751, Wanza et al.

    爆料网AT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual differences nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-750 (Kagizi et al.). 爆料网AT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment in paragraphs 18-27. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgments.

    2018-爆料网AT-850, Zama

    爆料网AT considered the appeal. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was estopped from challenging the lawfulness of the reassignment decision made in 2012 because his application to 爆料网DT only challenged the decision to terminate his appointment in 2014. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT’s holding that there was no nexus between the reassignment and the abolition of the Appellant’s post. 爆料网AT also agreed with 爆料网DT’s finding that 爆料网FPA fulfilled its duties towards the Appellant and had no obligation to place him on a new post. 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request to overturn the impugned judgment on the sole ground of...