±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal of the consolidated applications. With respect to the first issue, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the Appellant had failed to establish that the decision not to confirm his appointment as TDSE Advisor and to transfer him to his previous post was unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT failed to examine the relevant facts and to apply legal and regulatory provisions to his performance evaluations during his probationary period. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also noted that the review of the Appellant¡¯s performance assessments...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s disciplinary system provides that the Commissioner-General may only impose such disciplinary measures on current staff members. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in finding that the Commissioner-General was entitled to impose the disciplinary measure of a fine after the Appellant¡¯s employment ended and held that the disciplinary measure had to be rescinded. With respect to the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it may only award compensation for harm in cases where the individual presented evidence, other than...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the relationship between a pension fund and its members and beneficiaries is determined principally by the Regulations of the Fund and that there is no other explicit contractual basis obliging the Fund to assume duties beyond those expressly provided for in the Regulations and Administrative Rules. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasized the importance of contracts being executed in good faith. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Fund breached its duty of good faith because the correspondence between the Appellant and the Fund indicated that she needed assistance and further...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal, challenging ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the application, as it related to the second contested decision, was filed on time and was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the Secretary-General, that the official holiday at the New York Registry on 5 September 2016 is irrelevant for the determination of the timeliness of the individual¡¯s filing before the Nairobi Registry. Although the case was later transferred to New York, on 6 September 2016, this case was still recorded as pending before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Nairobi and the filing of all documents in that month was expected to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no reason to differ from ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the applicable procedural requirements were followed, and the evidence did not supersede the presumption of regularity of the administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that the Appellant was afforded full and fair consideration and that he failed to establish any bias by the members of the panel. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that the Appellant forewent the required procedures for filing complaints of discrimination and failed to provide evidence that he was the target of the restructuring exercise or that it...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that the Appellant should have requested a management evaluation of decision on or before 16 December 2014 and that he did not do so until 3 January 2017. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the motion for leave to comment on the answer to the appeal, finding that the matters that the Appellant sought to address in her comments would be essentially a repetition of, or supplementary to, her submissions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and addressed the concerns identified by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT by establishing the critical facts as instructed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT's conclusions were consistent with the evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision not to...

The staff member filed an application for execution of judgment No. 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-604 (Ocokoru). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in judgment 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-604, it did not make any order affecting the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment that was appealed but simply decided that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the execution of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment remained within the jurisdiction of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and, as such, it was not competent to grant the staff member¡¯s application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that Article 27 (Execution of judgments) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Rules of Procedure, when read together with Article 11.4 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-774 filed by Mr Awe. The application was admitted in part. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT ordered the Secretary-General to send a corrected version of the meeting minutes and of the FFP¡¯s findings to all the recipients of the 22 January 2014 meeting minutes. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that its judgment did not address the question of whether Mr Awe could request disciplinary actions against Ms Yasin, or whether he could claim compensation for procedural errors in case such actions have not been undertaken since these issues were the subject of Mr Awe¡¯s separate...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for execution filed by Mr Kallon, seeking the execution of the non-pecuniary aspects of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no need to order execution as the judgment had been executed in full since the order of rescission did not require execution by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the rescission of the contested administrative decisions took effect as the direct consequence of the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in Mr Kallon¡¯s request for execution and, therefore, dismissed his request for costs against the Secretary-General for abuse...