Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request to have all appeal-related documents removed from her Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA official service file. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding no irregularity in the decision-making process under judicial review and consequently dismissing the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had to persuade it that there were flaws in the contested administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, the proceedings that led to it, or in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment, which would warrant vacating the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not raised new arguments...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in deciding that the non-renewal of the staff member¡¯s contract was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member was aware that a high school diploma was an essential qualification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his contract was conditional upon him producing proof of this qualification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member was also aware that the consequence of failing to satisfy this requirement was the non-renewal of his contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the decision not to renew was neither...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the receivability of the issue of non-renewal and whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s claim that his candidacy for the relevant post had not been given full and fair consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referenced Staff Rule 11. 2(a), which provides that it is an established principle that a request for management evaluation is the first step in the appeal process of an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subject(s) of review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault...

The Secretary-General appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment as it related to the non-renewal decision only. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a shifting onus of proof was appropriate where the non-renewal decision was based on a lack of funds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found nothing objectionable with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s reference to the burden or onus of proof resting with the Secretary-General in the circumstances of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the Secretary-General failed to establish by evidence that the financial situation of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ body which had engaged Ms Loose at the time of the separation was still...

The Secretary-General appealed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the contested decisions to abolish Ms Nouinou¡¯s post, the consequent decision not to renew her two-year fixed-term appointment, and the refusal to re-assign her for two months under a zero-dollar incumbency, where she had been selected for a short-term position, were unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made a grave error in law in terms of the basic legal position, which defined the subject of the litigation before it and the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no administrative decision to terminate Ms Nouinou¡¯s contract prior to its expiration and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant had not met the evidentiary burden of showing that the Administration made an express and firm commitment in writing to extend his appointment and that conversely, the evidence showed that, in accordance with its Transition Plan, the Mission had no intention of maintaining the Applicant¡¯s post and proceeded with the downsizing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions did not require Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOCI to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment, neither did it alter Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOCI¡¯s obligation to implement the phased drawdown in accordance...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not satisfied his burden of proof to show through clear and convincing evidence that his separation was unfair and that the Administration did not violate any term of the Applicant¡¯s contract of employment. The Applicant challenged the fact that he was separated on ground of retrenchment before the General Assembly had approved the Budget to abolish his post. The record showed that this issue was already adjudicated upon in favour of the Applicant under Order No. 086 (NBI/2019). In accordance with the Tribunal¡¯s earlier final finding on the matter, it...