Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

After requesting additional findings of fact from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reconsidered an appeal by the staff member following the prior remand.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment had failed to make a single mention of the nature, content or purpose of the testimony adduced under oath before it but was based entirely on hearsay evidence drawn exclusively from the investigation report and other documents. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found problematic the fact that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no pronouncement as to why it exclusively relied on hearsay evidence and gave no reason why the evidence was not given by the person...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Loubani. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while a preliminary assessment [regarding potential evidence by witnesses nominated by Mr. Loubani to be interviewed] should have been made by the investigators, this was done by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, and the evidence found to be so inadequate as to be safely ignored.

Mr. Loubani had an opportunity to present this evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, so that its proper assessment meant that his due process right was allowed, albeit belatedly. It would have made no difference to the outcome had the investigators done so. The investigators would have reached...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the simple issue arising in this appeal was whether it was appropriate and correct for the judge to have proceeded with the application for review of the contested decisions while the motion for recusal was pending. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the straightforward answer is that it was not.

An application for recusal can be brought at any time in the proceedings and is usually a difficult strategic choice for the party making the challenge. Such an application is made, typically, at the moment the party loses confidence in the judge. Its timing will depend on the circumstances. The...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Saleh¡¯s complaints of procedural unfairness were unsustainable for the reasons stated by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and he had not discharged the burden incumbent upon him to satisfy the Appeals Tribunal that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective in that regard. He merely repeated the untenable submissions he made before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT took note that Mr. Saleh admitted to two counts of fraud. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT then held that Mr. Saleh¡¯s conduct unquestionably damaged the trust relationship and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to defer to the reasonable conclusion of the Administration that the damage was irreparable and...

The Secretary-General appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to address OAI¡¯s investigation report, the acceptance of which led to Ms. Lekoetje¡¯s severance from service. The investigation report was an important evidential element which should have been, but was not, examined and analyzed by the Dispute Tribunal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was wrong to have dismissed the allegations of misconduct against Ms. Lekoetje without considering the investigation report¡¯s evidence of them.

Because of the intertwined natures of the two relationships between Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP and Ms. Lekoetje (landlord...

The crucial question on appeal was whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error when it only referred for accountability the Chief of Investigations of OIAI but not the ED and other staff members of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, because it was within the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s discretion to reject the applicant¡¯s request for referral. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s legal approach was correct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decided not to refer the ED of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF for accountability because it was not shown that she had had any influence in the handling of applicant¡¯s complaint. Ms. Dettori also did not show on...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Al Othman against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2020/073. It also considered a cross-appeal by the Commissioner-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, to the extent that the Judgment awarded Mr. Al Othman compensation.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence established that Mr. Al Othman committed the alleged offences. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT conclusions were accurate, based on evidence on record and common knowledge and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to differ from them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT shared the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s view that the only reasonable conclusion available to the trial Judge, resulting from the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in considering that the different periods of ALWOP on which Mr. Okwakol was placed, were the subject of a single and continuing administrative decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that each of the three identifiable periods was the subject of consideration or reconsideration of the circumstances at that time. On each occasion, the Organisation took a decision about the state of the misconduct investigation and its ongoing nature and advised Mr. Okwakol accordingly. It was not decisive or even material that the renewals of the ALWOP were referred to as extensions of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT decided that mistakes in the way the summary dismissal decision was communicated to the appellant did not affect the fact that the real decision had ultimately been taken by the competent person in the Commissioner-General and not by any delegated authority.

It was undisputed that Mr. Mohammad was not afforded the opportunity to comment on the additional evidence produced against him after the re-opening of the investigation (two interviews of student B¡¯s mother and student B). However, neither in his appeal nor in his initial application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did he point out any...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first reviewed the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that Mr. Loto¡¯s application was receivable with respect to the entire period for which he was on ALWOP. The Secretary-General contended that Mr. Loto had timely challenged only an initial ALWOP decision, and not a subsequent decision when the ALWOP was extended. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s receivability argument, finding that the Secretary-General was estopped from raising it on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Loto had filed a request for management evaluation of the second ALWOP decision...