±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal held that the application was moot. At the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, ABCC had already issued its decision and granted the Applicant¡¯s claims. Accordingly, the Application was found not receivable.

The Tribunal stressed that the Applicant, contrary to his assertion, was not awarded compensation for loss of earnings. He was awarded material damages for his loss of opportunity.; The Tribunal reviewed the paragraph sought to be interpreted and was of the view that the Judgment was comprehensible and clear. The expression ¡°net base salary¡± was found to be clear and unambiguous and to refer to gross salary minus staff assessment. It does; not include a post adjustment component. The Tribunal also clearly did not provide for the taking into consideration of a possible step increment in the...

The Tribunal finds that the application is receivable.

Considering that in the circumstances of the case it is in the interest of all parties that the present matter be disposed of as soon as possible, the Tribunal deemed appropriate to rule on the application for revision by summary judgment, in accordance with art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure, without waiting for the Applicant¡¯s reply.; An application for revision is not possible when the judgment in question is subject to appeal; the appropriate avenue for a party to adduce new facts during this period is through appellate proceedings.; Since the judgment was not executable, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found not...

The Applicant¡¯s education grant claim for his four-year-old son did not fall under the exception of section 2 of ST/AI/2011/4 Amend 1. To the extent that the entitlement for private tuition in the mother tongue of the; Applicant was part and parcel of the education grant and not separate from it, the Applicant would be entitled to it only where the child in respect of whom he makes the claim is entitled to an education grant. This Tribunal cannot decide as to whether the Applicant ought to have been allowed during the management evaluation process to review any documents and whether failure to...

While the Applicant was not required to request management evaluation before filing this application, she was, however, required to file her application with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT within; 90 calendar days of receiving the contested decision. The Applicant¡¯s 25 March 2018 motion for waiver failed to comply with the stringent requirement pronounced by the Appeal¡¯s Tribunal in Thiam because it was not filed prior to the filing of her substantive application but more than five months after the fact. Additionally, the Applicant¡¯s passing mention of receivability in her 17 October 2017 application cannot be...

1) With regard to Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NBI/2015/058, the Tribunal declined to entertain decisions a, b and c as listed above on the ground that the Applicant had not submitted them for management evaluation as required by the provisions of articles 8.1(c ) and (i) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. The only decision under Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NBI/2015/058 that the Tribunal considered was the Respondent¡¯s decision to not provide the Applicant with a copy of the investigation report in the complaint of the physical assault against him. On this issue, the Tribunal found no merit in the Applicant¡¯s case. The Tribunal...

The Respondent submitted that the case was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not concern an appealable decision, but the Tribunal rejected this claim and found the case receiveable.

The Dispute Tribunal found that the Applicant did not manage to lift her burden of proving that the non-renewal of her contract was not due to poor performance and found instead that the decision was lawful.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal, which was not accompanied by a legal brief explaining the basis of the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant failed to identify by citation to any provision in Article 2. 1 of the Statute, the grounds for his appeal, and was required to do so. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found the appeal to be defective and not allowed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s judgment.

±¬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 held that the Appellant had failed to make a request for correction of her current contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it could not step outside its statutory remit and examine the merits of the Appellant¡¯s claim for payments under her current contract when she had made no request for a review regarding it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that JAB did not err in finding the Appellant¡¯s claims of 30 December 2015 for revision of her step level under the previous contract as not receivable since the Appellant submitted her request more than a year from the date on which she received her first salary or ¡°initial payment¡±...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal while the application for revision before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was still pending. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the new job opening for 13 S-3 level vacancies, for which the Applicant was invited to interview, is a matter which could be relevant to the issue of the quantum of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remanded the case to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to complete its hearing of the application for revision of judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since it did not find that an oral hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Summary judgment, finding that the application was manifestly inadmissible, was not tainted by any errors. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was asking for the execution of an alleged default judgment issued by the first instance court in the previous proceedings more than six years earlier, and for enforcement of a non-existent mediation agreement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬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...