±¬ÁÏÍø

The Applicant filed the application for a stay of proceedings in her case pending the outcome of an on-going recruitment process to the vacant post. The motion for stay of proceedings was refused because it lacked merit. The application was struck out because the Applicant was inviting the Tribunal to act as ¡°Big Brother¡± and constitute some kind of sword of Damocles over the head of the Respondent by keeping her case alive while the recruitment process was on and to possibly invoke it if she was not happy with the outcome of the exercise. This was an abuse of the Tribunal¡¯s process. In...

The contested decision was prima facie unlawful for the following reasons: i) there was a promise of renewal by the officer-in-charge that created a legitimate expectation of renewal, which placed on the Respondent a duty to consider whether it was not in the interest of the organisation that the expectation of the renewal of the employment should be fulfilled; and ii) the decision not to renew the contract of the Applicant appeared to be in breach of the Organization¡¯s Rules and amounted to an abuse of discretion. On the question of urgency, the Applicant had been informed that his contract...

The advertisement of a vacancy announcement is an action in rem, not in personam. In the present case, the Applicant failed to prove that the failure on the part of the Respondent to advertise the total number of posts to be filled in the vacancy announcement was a material error which violated his rights. With respect to the various allegations of discrimination, favouritism, corruption, lack of transparency, forgery, gambling, impunity, and abuse of authority in the selection system at stake, the Applicant failed to prove his pleas

Judicial Review is a supervisory jurisdiction. It is not a jurisdiction which a tribunal may exercise over itself. The former ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT were and are creatures of statute. Each has the ability, inherent to all courts and tribunals, to imply powers to prevent abuses of process; however, the jurisdiction of each tribunal is limited by the provisions of its respective empowering statute. In the absence of specific jurisdiction conferred on a statutory tribunal by statute, the power to exercise a supervisory jurisdiction such as judicial review cannot be implied. This conclusion is...

The Tribunal takes note that the Applicant has failed to file his application within the deadline given to him in the Tribunal¡¯s Order of 22 January 2010 and even beyond. It also notes that the Applicant has not provided any reasonable explanation as to why he did not comply with the Order of the Tribunal. By his behaviour and attitude the Applicant has displayed a singular blatant ignorance of a court order. His conduct is one of contempt of the Tribunal. This attitude does not befit persons who like the Applicant come to seek justice and a vindication of their rights before the Tribunal.

A re-trial would be unduly wasteful of time and resources. The Respondent was adequately represented especially as no oral evidence was tendered by the Applicant and the issue of cross- examining a witness did not arise. Full equality was accorded the parties in the circumstances. The onus lies on the Respondent to show that the provisions of ST/AI/2006/3 had been complied with in this case in order to prove that the Applicant was fully, fairly and properly considered. This onus has not been discharged.The Applicant¡¯s candidature was not considered at the 15-day mark as required by the...

i. Whether the Applicant¡¯s suspension of 26 May 2006 was lawful: The Tribunal found that the Chief of Security/±¬ÁÏÍøON unilaterally and verbally suspended the Applicant in breach of the Staff Rules at that time. It was noted that such a decision could only be made by the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) who was the properly delegated individual. Further, the Applicant was not given reasons for his suspension and the suspension was not made in conjunction with a charge of misconduct. ii. Whether the Applicant was lawfully placed on SLWFP: The Tribunal...

This Application is not receivable and is additionally frivolous and vexatious.

The Applicant made an application for strike out, summary judgment and transfer of the case to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT New York or Geneva on the grounds that there was a conflict of interest for various reasons. The Tribunal issued Order No. 28 refusing the requests for strike out, summary judgment and transfer and, in accordance with Article 19 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Rules of Procedure (ROP), gave case management directives, which the Applicant was supposed to comply with by 4 March 2010 but he did not do so. Subsequent to the Tribunal issuing an Order to show cause, the Applicant informed the Tribunal that its...

Citing the Teferra judgment, the Tribunal examined whether the application contained an administrative decision falling under the purview of Article 2 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.4 (a). The Tribunal found that there was nothing on the record to show that the administration gave specific instructions to the hospitals in Kenya not to provide medical services to the Applicant. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not able to receive medical services on an occasion due to his lack of diligence in obtaining a MIP card for himself and his family members, despite the numerous attempts...