Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that in the absence of an express mandate in the legal framework that a continuing appointment can be extended or a staff member be re-instated for the purpose of utilizing sick leave, Mr. Iacovino¡¯s entitlement to sick leave ceased on the date specified in his termination letter, 31 December 2023. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recognized that pursuant to ST/AI/2005/3, staff on fixed-term appointments may be granted an extension to utilize an entitlement to sick leave, but there is no analogous rule applicable to staff serving on a continuing appointment, much less to staff whose appointments have...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly decided that each of these decisions was separate and there was no evidence that they were related. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that she had not met her burden of showing that the impugned Judgment was defective.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 lack of justifiable explanation on the part of the Respondent for the delay from December 2018 to June 2021 could only be attributed to lack of due care and diligence, transparency, accountability and good faith. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the delay was compensable.

The Applicant proved beyond a balance of probabilities that the mental and emotional harm suffered by the dependents was directly attributable to the Administration¡¯s negligent handling of the matter.

The claim of moral harm was sufficiently proved to the requisite standard.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/124 and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nevertheless observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022). Despite this, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rightfully refused to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant was informed of the outcome of his request for a management evaluation regarding his non-selection...

The Applicant¡¯s post termination correspondence seeking to clarify what his terminal benefits would be, his eventual receipt of a statement of payments on 20 September 2021 and the filing of a new MER on 27 October 2021 reiterating the points previously made and decided on by the MEU did not re-set the time for the filing of the application. The Applicant waited approximately seven months after receiving the June 2021 MEU response, which addressed his submissions about entitlement to termination indemnity, before filing the application. The application was therefore outside the permitted 90...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant never made any appeal or request to the ABCC for reconsideration of the impugned decision in accordance with art. 17(a) of former Appendix D and that the application was therefore not receivable ratione materiae on that count. The Tribunal concluded that since the 6 February 2019 email was not an appeal/request for reconsideration of the Respondent¡¯s decision, the only contestable decision was one dated 15 January 2019. The Applicant had 30 days to contest that decision by filing a request for reconsideration pursuant to art. 17(a) of former Appendix D but...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made both factual and legal errors when it concluded that 15 March 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision within the meaning of Staff Rule 11.2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that 18 April 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, which is when the 60-day period began to run under Staff rule 11.2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant made her request for management evaluation within the 60 days of 18 April 2013, thus...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that exceptional circumstances existed which warranted an extension of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s discretion should have been exercised in the Appellant¡¯s favour because it affected access to justice and there is a presumption that access to justice should not be denied at the outset without compelling reasons, which were absent. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that circumstances beyond the Appellant¡¯s control prevented him from acting to file his appeal within the time limit and it would be unjust to visit upon the Appellant the consequences of an error (a fail in the electronic filing system) for which...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that Mr. Russo-Got failed to show that, in deciding the merits of his claims, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact or in law, or that its Judgment was otherwise flawed.