±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2022/124 and that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT nevertheless observed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022). Despite this, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case. With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rightfully refused to...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal, without prejudice.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Mr. Radu¡¯s appeal concerned the administrative decision of 8 November 2021 in respect of his separation from service during certified sick leave.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that a separate appeal by Mr. Radu, first before the Appeals Board and now before the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, concerned that same administrative decision of 8 November 2021 on its merits, i.e. the disciplinary measure of separation from service for the alleged misconduct (±¬ÁÏÍøAT Case No. 2023-1804).

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the impugned Appeals Board Decision in this case was not...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error of procedure such that it affected the outcome of the case in not holding an oral hearing and relying significantly on the OAIS investigation report to corroborate the truth of the events alleged by the Complainant, when there was no direct witnesses to the alleged misconduct and all the witnesses relied upon by the OAIS investigators obtained their evidence and information from the Complainant. As such, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that the prejudice to the Appellant in admitting and relying upon this evidence...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, finding that that the issues were well-defined and required no further development through an oral hearing.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application for review of the response to his request for management evaluation of his non-selection was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not produce direct legal consequences for him and was, therefore, not a reviewable administrative decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the Appellant was informed of the outcome of his request for a management evaluation regarding his non-selection...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member did not cite any provision of Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and did not indicate whether any errors by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT in his case related to its jurisdiction, the procedure, a question of law or a question of fact. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was defective and consequently not receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, nevertheless, reiterated its jurisprudence on some of the issues raised, and agreed with the way the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had determined the amount of in-lieu compensation. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in fact when it had not considered separation on retirement, mentioned in the separation notice, to be the reason for the contested decision; the mention of retirement had no import on the staff member¡¯s separation. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that the letter informing her of the expiry of her fixed-term appointment was in line with the abolition of the post she encumbered.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that judicial review in the context of suspension of action is different from the review conducted by the Tribunal...

As a preliminary matter, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Qassem¡¯s request for an oral hearing. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had been clearly defined by the parties and moreover, an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that since Mr. Qassem¡¯s fixed-term appointment was extended beyond 31 March 2020, with no effect given to the initial administrative decision not to renew his employment beyond this date, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the application was moot since the administrative decision...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered three appeals by the applicant.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the impugned Order was an interlocutory order and was obviously beyond the competence of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the applicant had not submitted documents to prove being a United Nations staff member and that he had no legal standing before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no evidence of an offer of appointment having been issued to him for either post. Second, he failed to complete the pre-recruitment formalities for both posts. Third, he failed to confirm, within a reasonable time, his interest and...

Mr. Bwalya appealed.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Mr. Bwalya had not demonstrated that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that he had committed misconduct by instructing a ±¬ÁÏÍøDP staff member to forge a backdated Memorandum of Understanding between the Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and the private firm Digata and to make a misrepresentation in a second document, intentionally acting to avoid or deviate from ±¬ÁÏÍøDP¡¯s Financial Regulations, Rules and Procedures through the creation of these documents, and demonstrating favouritism in the award of a...

Mr. Moulana appealed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøATnoted that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed Mr. Moulana's application on the grounds of insufficient evidence, whereas he had not been afforded the opportunity to provide the evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, by failing to address the Appellant¡¯s requests for the production of documents, including ignoring his motion, violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights and deprived him of the opportunity to have his motion assessed and possibly granted, following which he could have submitted the pieces of evidence which the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found he failed to provide. Therefore...