2014-惇蹋厙AT-492

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT considered Mr Gakumba＊s application for revision of judgment No. 2013-惇蹋厙AT-387. 惇蹋厙AT held that it did not fulfil the statutory requirements and was seemingly disguised as an attempt to re-open the case. 惇蹋厙AT held that it would be manifestly unreasonable to submit that the 惇蹋厙DP Conversion Policy issued in 2010 could not be argued by the staff member in 2012 before the 惇蹋厙DT, or in 2013 before 惇蹋厙AT. 惇蹋厙AT held that no valid reason had been provided about the untimely submission of the application for revision. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the application for revision.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Previous 惇蹋厙AT Judgment: Mr Gakumba contested his separation. In Judgment No. 惇蹋厙DT/2012/192, 惇蹋厙DT found that this decision was tainted by due process and procedural violations and ordered Mr Gakumba＊s reinstatement or compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 惇蹋厙DT also ordered compensation for the due process and procedural violations. In Judgment No. 2013-惇蹋厙AT-387, 惇蹋厙AT considered the Secretary-General＊s appeal and allowed it in part. 惇蹋厙AT reduced the in-lieu compensation and affirmed the award for due process and procedural violations.

Legal Principle(s)

The authority of a final judgment 每 res judicata 每 cannot be so readily set aside. Any application which, in fact, seeks a review of a final judgment rendered by 惇蹋厙AT can, irrespective of its title, only succeed if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established by Article 11 of the 惇蹋厙AT Statute.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the 惇蹋厙DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 惇蹋厙AT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Gakumba

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement