±¬ÁÏÍø

Noting that the Appellant, the innocent party, lost her employment, her career prospects within the Organisation, and the offending managers remained entrenched in their positions, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a substantial variation or a striking disparity between the award made by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the award that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered ought to have been made. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given that an order of reinstatement was unlikely to be implemented, a more generous award was justifiable in the circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law or fact in denying moral damages, as there was no corroborating...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to separate the Applicant was arbitrary, discriminatory, constituted an abuse of authority, and was unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not obliged to set an in-lieu compensation amount, as the decision concerned a lateral transfer, not an appointment, promotion, or termination. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that Ms. Koduru¡¯s testimony was not compelling enough to serve as a basis for an award of moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected Ms. Koduru¡¯s request for costs. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.
Accountability referral: The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence in reviewing Mr Omwanda¡¯s EOD date, as it was not subject to a timely request for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Omwanda knew or ought to have known from his Letter of Appointment the date from which his appointment was effective, that he had been re-employed, not reinstated, and that its terms applied regardless of any period of former service. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was statutorily barred from hearing Mr Omwanda¡¯s application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to support her allegations of bias, discrimination, and/or improper motives. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it had examined all of the grounds raised in the appeal and held that there was no evidence that the Administration did not act fairly, justly, and transparently throughout the restructuring process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any error in law or fact to support her case for a reversal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

The Secretary-General appealed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the contested decisions to abolish Ms Nouinou¡¯s post, the consequent decision not to renew her two-year fixed-term appointment, and the refusal to re-assign her for two months under a zero-dollar incumbency, where she had been selected for a short-term position, were unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made a grave error in law in terms of the basic legal position, which defined the subject of the litigation before it and the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no administrative decision to terminate Ms Nouinou¡¯s contract prior to its expiration and...

With respect to the Appellant¡¯s appeal as it pertained to his 2016 performance evaluation and OTI, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure such as to affect the outcome of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issue of the e-PERs of the other staff members was not raised before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and, therefore, was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reopening of the 2016 e-PER did not affect the overall performance evaluation, which was maintained as ¡°fully meets¡± expectations, and therefore this...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr Amarah and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA against judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2018/041 and judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2018/004. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issues pertaining to the CSO selection process and the contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA had waived the condition of the 18-month separation after the EVS were not properly before it, as they had not been raised before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and were therefore not receivable. Noting that Mr Amarah had breached the prohibition of employment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that he could not be allowed to breach the rules knowingly, engage in unlawful...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the finding by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that he had failed to meet his burden of proving that the assignment to work in Sector East was motivated by improper consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly considered the relevant facts and the applicable law in concluding that the Administration had followed the prescribed procedures and acted in accordance with the internal law of the Organisation in separating him for abandonment of post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant could not choose to ignore a lawful direction by the Administration to provide medical...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an oral hearing was not necessary and would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as the Appellant had not provided grounds for an oral hearing beyond seeking to confront the witnesses and comment on existing evidence. Whilst ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT as required under Art 2(1) ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s exercise...

On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judge was biased, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s specific allegations were not made out and any missteps in the conduct of the hearing did not warrant interference with the result. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that his supervisor harassed him to the extent that his actions were mitigated substantially, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even if the Appellant established that there was a dysfunctional relationship between him and his supervisor, this could not have had the effect of mitigating his actions significantly, such were the scale and duration of his misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...