Abolition of post | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-750, Kagizi et al.

14 Jul 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT consolidated the 51 appeals into seven groups heard by seven judicial panels, the first group (Kagizi et al. judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2016/131) being heard by the full bench. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeals. 罌厭弝ⅰAT confirmed 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊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. 罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that, while in other aspects, 罌厭弝ⅰDT regarded the applications as receivable and dealt with the merits of the case, those findings were not substantially...

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-759, Hassanin

14 Jul 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT vacated 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s compensation orders in the cases in which staff members had secured alternative employment, finding that the applications had become moot. In the remaining cases, 罌厭弝ⅰAT considered that any permanent staff member facing termination due to abolition of post must show an interest in a new position (for which he or she is suitable and qualified) by timely and completely applying for that position. However, once the application process is completed, the Administration is required by Staff Rule 13. 1(d) to consider the permanent staff member on a preferred or non-competitive basis...

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-756, Nkashama et al.

14 Jul 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT 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-罌厭弝ⅰAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore 罌厭弝ⅰAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgments.

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-755, Ramazani et al.

14 Jul 2017

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-754, Kisubi et al.

14 Jul 2017

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-753, Kiluwe et al.

14 Jul 2017

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-752, Baguma et al.

14 Jul 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT 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-罌厭弝ⅰAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and 罌厭弝ⅰAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgments.

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-751, Wanza et al.

14 Jul 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT 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-罌厭弝ⅰAT-750 (Kagizi et al.). 罌厭弝ⅰAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment in paragraphs 18-27. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgments.

2018-罌厭弝ⅰAT-850, Zama

29 Jun 2018

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered the appeal. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant was estopped from challenging the lawfulness of the reassignment decision made in 2012 because his application to 罌厭弝ⅰDT only challenged the decision to terminate his appointment in 2014. 罌厭弝ⅰAT agreed with 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s holding that there was no nexus between the reassignment and the abolition of the Appellant＊s post. 罌厭弝ⅰAT also agreed with 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s finding that 罌厭弝ⅰFPA fulfilled its duties towards the Appellant and had no obligation to place him on a new post. 罌厭弝ⅰAT denied the Appellant＊s request to overturn the impugned judgment on the sole ground of...

2018-罌厭弝ⅰAT-848, Oguntola

29 Jun 2018

罌厭弝ⅰAT denied the Appellant＊s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the RoP. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that Toure is binding precedent on 罌厭弝ⅰDT as it applied to the Appellant＊s case and found no fault with 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s judgment.