2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-750, Kagizi et al.
±¬ÁÏÍøAT consolidated the 51 appeals into seven groups heard by seven judicial panels, the first group (Kagizi et al. judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2016/131) being heard by the full bench. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT confirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the appellants lacked standing to challenge the non-renewal of their appointments in so far as they were deemed to be a direct challenge against the General Assembly¡¯s decision to abolish the posts. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, while in other aspects, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT regarded the applications as receivable and dealt with the merits of the case, those findings were not substantially...
2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-755, Ramazani et al.
±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments.
2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-756, Nkashama et al.
±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments.
2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-757, Sarwar
±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that the decision to terminate the appointment was unlawful on account of the repeated non-compliance with ST/AI/2010/5 was formalistic. While obviously a work plan should be finalized at the beginning of a cycle, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that there was nothing in ST/AI/2010/5 that held any failure to generate a work plan at the commencement of a cycle to be a procedural flaw resulting axiomatically in any subsequent decision to terminate an appointment being unlawful. Likewise, there is no such consequence for not holding a midpoint review in a timely manner. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...
2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-758, Pedicelli
±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to reject the Applicant¡¯s claim that she had been downgraded on the basis that: the reclassification/renumbering exercise had a legitimate organizational objective; it was not a classification within the meaning of ST/AI/1998/9; and when the Appellant had submitted her post to proper classification, she was graded at the G-6 level, which was equivalent to her previous grade. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision that the Appellant failed to show that the alignment of her post to conform with the GCS had any detrimental impact on her salary or pensionable...
2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-751, Wanza et al.
±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual differences nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-750 (Kagizi et al.). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment in paragraphs 18-27. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments.
2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-752, Baguma et al.
±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments.
2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-753, Kiluwe et al.
±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments.
2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-754, Kisubi et al.
±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments.
±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2017/054, Elobaid
±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that notifying the Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Human Resource Management, in a case where authority to issue a reprimand has been delegated, is not required. Even if it was, its omission could not have had any impact on the validity of the impugned decision. The Applicant had not been properly given the opportunity to comment on the facts and circumstances prior to the issuance of a written or oral reprimand, thus his right to respond embodied by staff rule 10.2(c) was not observed. The facts relevant for the decision were not established to the required standard...