Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that at the time of the elections, there was no law that prevented the staff members from being elected to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC once they met the prerequisites for election, which they did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that both staff members were duly elected members of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC and that as a direct consequence of their election, they had the same rights and privileges as other elected members, and which could not be restricted or denied. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeals and ordered that the staff members be given access to all relevant Pension Board documents and be allowed to participate and function as elected...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in failing to file an appeal brief contesting the decision taken against her, the Appellant did not discharge her burden to demonstrate that the impugned judgment erred on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there appeared to be an implied administrative decision when the Appellant did not receive any decision on her first written demand in 2011 and that that application also seemed not to be receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not complied with his obligations under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no errors of law, fact, or procedure in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that under the relevant Circular, the Administration only had a duty to consider the Appellant¡¯s request to be transferred to a certain compound, but not his wish to be transferred to a certain school located in that compound. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to differ from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Mr Chhikara. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it considered that it did not need the missing evidence of the 25 situation questions and their ¡°key¡± answers, which directly related to the written test which Mr Chhikara failed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, by rejecting Mr Chhikara¡¯s request for the missing evidence and judging the case without it, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and also committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the interests of justice and judicial economy may be...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective in that it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute by not asserting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had either exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant also failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP by not providing a brief explaining the legal basis of any of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the summary dismissal decision was unlawful because the due process rights under IMO¡¯s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules were substantially violated. The Appellant had been charged with misconduct in the form of fraudulent activities undertaken to gain diplomatic accreditation, namely giving instructions to append an electronic signature to an official IMO communication without authorization or instruction by that colleague and misrepresenting his contractual status as internationally recruited in that communication. Noting that the Secretary-General of IMO considered the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant¡¯s application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to differ from the conclusion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA could not have considered the Appellant as having the requisite international experience. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant¡¯s arguments regarding the required international experience for the post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

On the Appellant¡¯s claim for his name not to appear in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, due to the fact that his name had been in the public domain for a long time as a result of the publication of many court documents related to his cases before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, it would be pointless to order redaction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to give any compelling reason as to why confidentiality should be granted and denied his request for confidentiality. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT fully and fairly considered the merits of his case and was in no doubt as to its substance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Onifade¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-668. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence before it to support the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Onifade had failed to show that the first MOP form was unknown to him at the time the judgment was rendered and he had presented no decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to him and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not meet the criteria established under Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application had no merit and dismissed it...