±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminary denied the Appellant¡¯s motions for leave to respond to the answer to the appeal and his request for production of documents and evidence, on grounds that there were no exceptional circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT then considered the merits of the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision that the investigation was not ultra vires. Whilst the Special Representative of the Secretary-General did not initiate the investigation, the nature of Chief Conduct and Discipline Team duties gave him authority to refer the matter to SIU for investigation. Even if the initiation of the investigation gave...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Onifade¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2016-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-668. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence before it to support the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Onifade had failed to show that the first MOP form was unknown to him at the time the judgment was rendered and he had presented no decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to him and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application did not meet the criteria established under Article 11(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and Article 24 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application had no merit and dismissed it...