爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
Mr. Jibril appealed.
As regards the request for an oral hearing, the 爆料网AT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. Moreover, an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, the request for an oral hearing is denied.
The 爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网RWA DT that the challenged administrative decision to place Mr. Jibril on Administrative Leave With Pay (ALWP) was lawful. The condition of a prima facie well-founded charge was met based on the abovementioned material evidence, namely there objectively existed reasonable grounds (probable cause) to believe that there had been an incident of verbal and physical altercation in which Mr. Jibril was involved.
Moreover, the 爆料网AT considered that, given the nature and seriousness of the incident, it had not been unreasonable for the Administration to wish to avoid the risk of confrontation with other staff members if Mr. Jibril had a continuing presence in the office, which would have been contrary to the interests of the Agency. Consequently, the 爆料网RWA DT rightly concluded that the contested administrative decision to place Mr. Jibril on ALWP pending the outcome of the investigation, was properly and lawfully effected.
The 爆料网AT also agreed with the 爆料网RWA DT’s reasoning that it was reasonable and therefore lawful for the Administration to place Mr. Jibril on ALWP for the grounds set out above and it was not within its jurisdictional remit to place itself into the shoes of the Administration and enforce the law in terms of the Administration’s alleged omission to also place the other staff members who were involved in the altercation on ALWP.
As an aside, the 爆料网AT was of the view that, even assuming arguendo that there was also prima facie evidence that others were involved in the same verbal and physical altercation, as intimated by the 爆料网RWA DT Judge, the fact that only Mr. Jibril was placed on ALWP does not, in and of itself, render the contested administrative decision unlawful, as Mr. Jibril incorrectly claims, namely on the ground that he was discriminated against.
The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网RWA DT had correctly determined that Mr. Jibril’s application regarding his placement on ALWOP had become moot. The administrative decision to place him on ALWOP was superseded by the Commissioner-General’s decision to place him on ALWP and Mr. Jibril conceded before the 爆料网RWA DT that he had received the balance of his salary and entitlements. Thus, at the administrative stage, the alleged illegality was solved after the judicial procedure had begun, rendering the latter unnecessary, as the specific remedy sought was reached. Mr. Jibril was unable to demonstrate to the 爆料网RWA DT Judge how his rights remained adversely affected by a decision which had been superseded. Nor could he show that he was suffering any injury because of that decision.
Lastly, as regards Mr. Jibril’s claim for moral damages, the 爆料网AT held that since no illegality was found, there was no justification for the award of any compensation.
The 爆料网AT dismissed Mr. Jibril’s appeal and affirmed Judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2021/034.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr. Jibril contested a 爆料网RWA decision to place him on administrative leave (ALWOP amended to ALWP) from 16 to 29 June 2019, pending the outcome of a disciplinary process following two incidents of verbal and physical altercation that he was involved in.
By Judgment 爆料网RWA/DT/2021/034, of 8 August 2021, the 爆料网RWA DT dismissed his application.
Legal Principle(s)
The judges assigned to a case will determine whether to hold oral proceedings.
The judges hearing a case may hold oral hearings on the written application of a party or on their own initiative if such hearings would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case.
A party, in order to be successful on appeal, not only has to assert and show that the 爆料网RWA DT committed an error in procedure but also that this error affected the decision on the case.
Under Article 2(1)(d) of its Statute, the 爆料网AT is competent to hear and pass judgment on an appeal filed against a judgment rendered by the 爆料网RWA DT in which it is asserted that the 爆料网RWA DT has committed an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case.
The 爆料网RWA DT has broad discretion under its Rules of Procedure to determine the admissibility of any evidence and the weight to be attached to such evidence.
The 爆料网AT will not lightly interfere with the broad discretion conferred on the first instance tribunal in the management of its cases to enable cases to be judged fairly and expeditiously and for dispensation of justice. The 爆料网AT will intervene only in clear cases of denial of due process of law affecting a party’s right to produce evidence.
Compensation cannot be awarded when no illegality has been established; it cannot be granted when there is no breach of the staff member’s rights or administrative wrongdoing in need of repair.