Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the required grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT properly discharged its duty to examine whether the procedure laid down in the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules had been followed and whether the Appellant had been given fair and adequate consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly placed upon the Appellant the onus of showing by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of being promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s observation that it was not enough for the Appellant to merely allege favouritism and yet...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that he argued the same arguments that he put before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant¡¯s arguments and weighed them against the facts of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision and held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in fact or law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issue to be determined was clear from the papers filed in the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, other than repeating his arguments before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, the Appellant had not detailed the alleged instances which, according to him, resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the claims of errors of fact on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, were unsustainable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err when it found, from the contents of the 2 September 2009 communication to the Appellant...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the grounds set out in Article 2. 1 of the Special Agreement between the United Nations and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals of both judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/026 (judgment on the merits) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/051 (judgment on revision). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal against the judgment on the merits was filed out of time and was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the judgment on revision failed to identify a ground of appeal, expressed disagreement, and repeated arguments already considered and rejected by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal constituted an impermissible attempt to reargue the merits of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact upon which the Appellant had based his revision application did...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the rejection of the application as not receivable was correct on the basis that the Appellant did not seek decision review within the mandatory time period, which meant that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was precluded in law from considering the merits of his application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify how the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment was in any way defective or demonstrated that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in relation to its jurisdiction or committed an error of fact or law or procedure such as would warrant intervention by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT...

The Appellant appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment failure to consider several points and to address compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the requisite grounds in his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not allow new claims to be raised on appeal when the circumstances giving rise to such claims were known to a party at the time and should have been presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision not to award compensation on the basis that there was no evidence in support of the Appellant¡¯s claim of psychological suffering. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant raised the same issues he raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and did not identify how the judgment was in any way defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the required grounds of appeal and failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and found no error of law or fact in its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in protesting against the non-inclusion of his Transitional Personal Allowance in his retirement benefit, the Appellant had failed to appreciate the distinction between an allowance and base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that under the applicable Staff Rules, the Appellant¡¯s retirement benefit did not include the Transitional Personal Allowance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for decision review with respect to his allegation of impropriety of his transfer and that therefore that claim was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing prior to consideration of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected the Appellant's claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was biased in ordering that the five applications be consolidated into a single judgment. With respect to the appeal itself, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal of the decisions denying disability benefits and finding the non-payment of termination claim not receivable, had no legal basis. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to render the findings of the medical board moot and not to pay him a disability benefit...