±¬ÁÏÍø

Receivability

After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the challenge to the decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s post and terminate his continuing appointment was not receivable. It held that the only matter before it was the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s employment to cover his sick leave, but instead to terminate his appointment and separate him while he was on certified sick leave.

Merits

First, the Tribunal assessed whether the Applicant was on certified sick leave at the time of his separation on 31 December 2023.

Although sick leave was not formally recorded...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the Administration had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Ammar made the Facebook post because the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) inappropriately discounted the possibility that Mr. Ammar¡¯s Facebook account had been hacked. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Administration met its burden of establishing that it was highly probable that Mr. Ammar posted the Comment and thus publicly expressed support for an honour killing. The Administration produced uncontradicted evidence that the comment came from Mr. Ammar¡¯s Facebook account and he...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that as per ISA¡¯s Staff Rule the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT has the competence to ¡°order an interim measure to provide temporary relief to either party to prevent irreparable harm and to maintain consistency with the decision taken at the first instance level¡±. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also has jurisdiction to order interim measures in appropriate cases arising out of an ISA dispute as is the case in Mr. Hall¡¯s Motion.

However, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Mr. Hall had failed to demonstrate that relief by way of interim measures was necessary to prevent irreparable harm and to maintain consistency with the JAB¡¯s decision. Mr...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had applied for vacancies of different posts, at different times, with different selection processes, and had not been selected for different reasons. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly decided that each of these decisions was separate and there was no evidence that they were related. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that she had not met her burden of showing that the impugned Judgment was defective.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application in respect of the post in Pretoria was clearly out of time and in respect of the post in Nairobi premature and, as such, not receivable...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly determined that the non-selection decision was superseded and rendered moot by the Administration's subsequent rescission of the decision, which ended the selection process without anyone being selected for the position. It concluded that, from that moment, the non-selection decision ceased to have any legal effect and was no longer a live issue on which the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had jurisdiction to pass judgment on.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further affirmed that it was entirely within the Administration¡¯s authority to rescind the non-selection decision given the procedural irregularities...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had filed numerous and confusing claims and applications that had been the subject of various reviews by the Management Evaluation Unit, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, all of which essentially attempted to ensure that the Administration continued to pay her benefits for medical reasons after expiration of her fixed-term appointment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that her submissions failed to identify in precise terms a specific administrative decision capable of being reviewed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the so-called non-decisions or incomplete decisions identified by her were not...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred when it found Ms. Fakhouri¡¯s application was receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that despite being a staff member, the decision with which Ms. Fakhouri took issue was one which related to the terms of a potential contract not as a staff member but as an independent contractor and therefore the contested decision was not one that was appealable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasized that Article 2(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Statute makes clear that appeals can be brought against administrative decisions where such decisions relate to the staff member¡¯s terms of appointment. But the...

The disciplinary decision was based on two allegations: first, that the staff member committed a physical assault during a domestic dispute; and second, that the staff member failed to immediately report an arrest and criminal proceedings to the Secretary?General, contrary to staff rule 1.5(d). Regarding the assault allegation, the Tribunal found the evidence sufficient and compelling. It relied on contemporaneous police records, a judicial order of protection identifying the staff member as the aggressor, photographic evidence of injury, consistent sworn statements obtained during the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Article 9(4) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute regarding the nature of the judicial review that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT conducts in disciplinary cases did not apply to the instant case as it was adopted after the hearing was held. The parties presented their evidence, including a chronology of agreed facts as well as live testimony, and made their respective post-hearing submissions, under a legal framework where Article 9(4) was not operative and it would be inappropriate, and a denial of due process, to apply a new evidentiary framework at the point of decision, ex post facto.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the procedures applied to fill the Position sought by the staff member were consistent with the applicable rules. Although the OCHA advertised the Position without any pre-determined restriction to rostered candidates, and received some 151 applications, it ultimately decided to select a rostered candidate, thereby excluding the staff member and many others from consideration. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration was well within its prerogative to do so, as the plain reading of Section 9.5 of Administrative Instruction ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1 (Staff selection system) grants...