Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Zaqqout. As regards an oral hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that since the application was dismissed on grounds of receivability, Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s arguments were not persuasive enough so as to justify an oral hearing at this stage. Some of the issues raised in the appeal were connected to the merits of Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s application and did not meet the threshold of the receivability assessment. Since Mr. Zaqqout was made aware at the very early stage of the proceedings of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s allegation that he had been notified of the impugned decision on 30 December 2018, he should have...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment. Regarding the deduction of a sum of money from his separation benefits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that this claim was not first submitted for decision review. Regarding his separation from service without termination indemnity, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment. The Tribunal agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the bank statement did not contain the correct amount and that the invoices he submitted did not relate to genuine purchases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that: (i) the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established by clear and convincing...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the determination of the Director of the Ethics Office that no retaliation had occurred constituted an administrative decision that went directly to the merits of the case and could not be subject to an interlocutory appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT order for production of document was not receivable, because it was interrelated to the alleged lack of jurisdiction. Noting that the Appellant would not be able to raise his issues in an appeal against the final judgment, as he did not file an application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not issued a judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was a procedural error to allow the Commissioner-General to participate in the proceedings and to file a late reply without a written order, but that the Appellant was not prejudiced by that error and the error did not violate his due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s failure to object to the Respondent¡¯s late reply before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not prevent him from raising on appeal the question of procedural error. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it did not permit him to file a rejoinder to the Respondent¡¯s reply, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Appellant did...

As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not follow the proper procedure when it allowed the Respondent to participate in the proceedings without a formal request for waiver of time limit for filing its answer and taking part in the trial. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that another significant irregularity took place during the proceedings before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, in light of which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was compelled to annul the judgment and remand the case for a de novo consideration by a different Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judge, namely that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed an error in procedure when it denied the Appellant¡¯s request for a copy of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that due process required both parties to be given an opportunity to present their case, and not allowing them to do so resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s exclusion of the Commissioner-General from participating in the proceedings was a clear violation of due process such as to affect the decision of the case, which must result in the judgment being annulled and the cases remanded for a hearing de novo before a different Judge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted it was, thus, not necessary to consider the other grounds of...

On the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in summarily addressing sua sponte the issue of the receivability of the application when the Commissioner-General did not raise that issue in his reply. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s request for review of the contested decision was filed almost a year after he knew of the implied decision and was, therefore, untimely. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contentions against the participation of the Commissioner-General in the proceedings and to file a...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the granting of the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file a reply to the Commissioner-General¡¯s answer and denied the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s findings that the application was not receivable ratione temporis because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the termination decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had no discretion to waive the regulatory time limit of three years, were unassailable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable ratione...

The Appellant did not raise any challenges as to the merits of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment, but rather his appeal related to the procedure adopted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT in hearing his complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction in the exercise of its power, such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. Noting that two Orders clarified the aim of the hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no prejudice caused to the Appellant by the failure to provide him with a description of the relevance of the witnesses¡¯ testimony. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal against Order No. 057 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/027. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for confidentiality and for the redaction of his name from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s reasoning. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to submit new evidence to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT on the basis that the Appellant did not offer any explanation as to why he was precluded from filing them previously, exceptional circumstances did not exist, and its content would not have affected the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to consider that it...