爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by 爆料网RWA DT. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not based on any of the grounds set out in Article 2. 1 of the Special Agreement between the United Nations and 爆料网RWA and that 爆料网AT, therefore, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
爆料网RWA DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to deny his request for special leave with pay (SLWP) or special leave with partial pay (SLWPP). 爆料网RWA DT dismissed the application, concluding that the impugned decision was within 爆料网RWA’s discretion, which was properly and lawfully exercised. 爆料网RWA DT found that the Appellant had erred in attempting to rely on the benefits accorded to the faculty of the University of Jordan under Article 14 of its Legislation as he was, rather, subject to the internal legislation of the Agency. 爆料网RWA DT found that 爆料网RWA was not obliged to grant his request for paid, or partially paid, leave. 爆料网RWA DT found that were the Agency to disregard the requirements of Article 3. 3 of PD A/17 [(which requires available funds prior to the approval of Agency expenditure on staff training)] it would have been not only unlawful but arguably an act of gross irresponsibility. 爆料网RWA DT noted that there had been no allegation that the reason proffered by the Agency was not valid.
Legal Principle(s)
It is not sufficient for the Appellant to state that he/she disagrees with the 爆料网RWA DT’s findings of fact and to repeat the arguments submitted before the first instance court, as 爆料网RWA DT has broad discretion to determine the weight it attaches to the evidence with which it is presented. The consistent jurisprudence of 爆料网AT emphasizes that the appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and is not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his or her case. Rather, he or she must demonstrate that the court below has committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by 爆料网AT (judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-035).