爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants and had no legal standing before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that, accordingly, the Appellant had no standing before 爆料网AT and therefore 爆料网AT had no competence to address the merits of her claims. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
The 爆料网DT judgment was appealed by both parties. On the lawfulness of the decision to withhold salary, 爆料网AT held that Mr Harris had not identified any grounds for his appeal and failed to demonstrate that 爆料网DT had committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. 爆料网AT held that Mr Harris’ case was fully and fairly considered and could find no error of law or fact in its decisions. On the cancellation of health insurance, 爆料网AT found no reason to differ from the 爆料网DT finding that Mr Harris did not make the appropriate payments to reinstate his health insurance coverage, thus...
爆料网AT considered that the 1994 and 2018 requests made by the Appellant to change his date of birth were essentially the same requests. 爆料网AT recalled that the reiteration of an original administrative decision if repeatedly questioned, does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory timeline. 爆料网AT held that the statutory period during which the Appellant had to file a challenge to the 1994 decision expired in 1997. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err in dismissing the application. On consideration of the Respondent’s claim to award costs, 爆料网AT was not satisfied that the pursuit of the...
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that it was unable to detect any fault in the 爆料网DT’s conclusion that the negative narrative comments and the performance appraisal itself constituted a reviewable administrative decision. 爆料网AT held that the negative narrative comments detracted from the overall satisfactory performance appraisal of the Appellant and had present and direct legal consequences for the Appellant’s terms of appointment, thus the comments and the performance appraisal constituted a final administrative decision. 爆料网AT held that the application was...
爆料网AT held that the Applicant failed to discharge his evidentiary burden to establish that his application was filed timeously. 爆料网AT held that the application was 8 days late and, as such, not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.
爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s claim that the basis for the non-renewal decision was his unsuccessful application for a newly created post for which he had applied. 爆料网AT held that there was no evidence of the link between the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment and his non-selection for the other post and considered that the timeline of events supported this. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in its finding that the non-renewal decision was a separate matter from the then-ongoing selection exercise. On the Appellant’s claim that the successive renewals of his appointment created an...
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct to find that the application was not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网DT’s position regarding the moment the Appellant knew or reasonably should have known of the content and finality of the decision and that it triggered the time limit to request management evaluation. 爆料网AT further affirmed 爆料网DT’s position that the Appellant’s request for management evaluation was time-barred. 爆料网AT, however, noted that 爆料网DT should have found the application not receivable ratione materiae, which is the case if there is no timely request for management evaluation, rather than ratione temporis. 爆料网AT further noted that this error by 爆料网DT did not adversely affect...
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not commit any errors in procedure, fact, or law and correctly dismissed the motion for an extension of time to file an application against the contested decision. 爆料网AT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for management evaluation and she was not exempted from doing so. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.
爆料网AT held that exceptional circumstances existed which warranted an extension of time. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s discretion should have been exercised in the Appellant’s favour because it affected access to justice and there is a presumption that access to justice should not be denied at the outset without compelling reasons, which were absent. 爆料网AT held that circumstances beyond the Appellant’s control prevented him from acting to file his appeal within the time limit and it would be unjust to visit upon the Appellant the consequences of an error (a fail in the electronic filing system) for which...
