±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2014/017. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-963 was a final judgment and therefore the Appellant¡¯s case was res judicata, which meant that the Appellant was precluded from raising his claim again. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT made no error in finding the Appellant¡¯s application manifestly inadmissible and dismissing it without referring it to the Commissioner-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held as unsustainable the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law when it considered his application was an application against judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-363. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had made no error in finding that as a General Service staff member at the G-5 level, the Applicant was not eligible to apply for the vacancy advertised in the JO, which was a post in the Professional category at the P-5 level and that, therefore, the disputed decision had no legal consequences affecting him and no effect on his rights and terms of employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in its finding that the Appellant was not claiming a right to be consulted as an individual staff member, but rather, in his capacity as a staff representative. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had correctly determined that the Appellant had failed to comply with the time limits set forth in former Area Staff Rule 111.3, making his application not receivable as it pertained to his challenge to the decision denying eligibility for the post of Database Manager. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had never sought review of the decision to separate him from service, failing to comply with Article 8.1(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Statute, which requires that an applicant must submit the contested administrative decision for decision review first. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General which was limited to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s award of compensation in lieu of rescission, which he claimed was excessive. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that since the Secretary-General did not contest Ms Sarrouh¡¯s claim for compensation before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, he could not raise the issue on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s award of in-lieu compensation was based on the uncontested evidence before it and as such, its findings were not unreasonable and it did not commit any error in its assessment of the compensation award. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in the absence of any error of law or manifestly...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claims that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to exercise its jurisdiction or erred in law by using the summary judgment procedure to determine the application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not challenge an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member, rather the Appellant challenged the MEU¡¯s wording in a letter to him acknowledging the receipt of his grievance or complaint. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-798 by Mr. Dibs. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted in part the application for execution of judgment and ordered ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA to fully execute the judgment within 30 calendar days, advising that failure to comply with the deadline would result in a finding of manifest abuse of process, the award of costs, and potentially, a referral for accountability. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that the request for moral and pecuniary damages did not fall within the scope of the application.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reason upon which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decided not to rescind the contested decision, i. e. the lapse of time, was insufficient justification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given the grossly negligent illegalities in which the selection process was conducted as found by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, rescission of the contested decision was mandatory and could not be avoided on the basis of the excessive length of time between the filing of the application and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that allowing the decision not to select the Appellant to remain in effect as if it was correct, despite its clear illegality, was not...

The Tribunal is not seized of an intelligible application. The applicant has failed to identify the impugned administrative decision or decisions for which he is seeking relief. He has also failed to identify any steps taken by him to seek administrative review of the impugned administrative decisions. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction pursuant to Article 2 (1) (a) and Article 8(1) of the Statute of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT or the equivalent provisions of the Statute of the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal to consider the application. Second, the applicant has failed to comply with two orders of the...

Out of the various decisions that the applicant challenged, only those raised in the request for administrative request are receivable. Mere preparatory decisions may not be contested before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, in accordance with article 2, paragraph 1, of its statute. Indeed, those decisions are not of such nature as to affect the staff member¡¯s rights per se; they can be called into question in contesting the main/final decision, but not by themselves. Furthermore, since the applicant had already been promoted by the time he filed the present case, he had no legitimate interest to take legal action.

Having observed the demeanour of the witnesses, examined and analyzed the evidence provided by the witnesses in support of the charge against the Applicant, the Tribunal finds the evidence credible, truthful and properly acted upon. The testimonies relied upon by the Respondent when imposing the disciplinary sanction against the Applicant are substantiated, corroborated and truthful. The evidence relied upon by the Respondent in this case sufficiently supports the charge against the Applicant of improperly soliciting and receiving monies from local citizens in exchange for their initial...