Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish any error in fact or law which would warrant the reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment under appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly characterized the contested administrative decision subject to its judicial review as a demotion and subsequent transfer, which was taken after disciplinary proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred when, after conducting an adequate review of the requirements for the adoption of a disciplinary measure, it concluded that there had been misconduct and that the sanction was legal and proportionate to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no reasonable or objective analysis of Mr Luvai¡¯s submissions to management, prior to his application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, regarding his non-selection for the posts could lead to a conclusion that the revocation of his firearm licence was sufficiently linked to the non-selection decisions such as to deem the matter as receivable by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in fact and law in deciding otherwise and that, in purporting to adjudicate on the revocation of Mr Luvai¡¯s firearm licence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reliance of the Administration on disciplinary/administrative measures to deny the staff member¡¯s conversion to permanent appointment did not give Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a carte blanche to go behind the agreed sanctions imposed on 20 April 2009. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s competence or jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry into whether the 2009 disciplinary sanctions were lawfully imposed or otherwise...

Noting that it had received a Motion to Withdraw, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, the appeal having been withdrawn, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment remained in force.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that V01 had not been placed under oath before giving her interview and that she did not sign the transcribed version of her interview statement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that V01¡¯s transcribed statement, in which she said that the Appellant had raped her and engaged in sex with her, was neither reliable nor trustworthy; it was solely hearsay and insufficient, by itself, to prove the charge that the Appellant engaged in sexual activity with a minor. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that similarly the other written documents were replete with hearsay and multiple hearsays and were neither trustworthy nor sufficient to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the incidents in question occurred before ST/SGB/2008/5 was promulgated, it was not applicable in this case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was unnecessary for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to apply ST/SGB/2008/5, which was clearly not in force at the time of the incidents. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the error committed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not resulted in a miscarriage of justice, finding that Mr Nogueira in any event merited a compensatory award for harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Nogueira was entitled to an effective remedy for the violation of his legal right to a workplace...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claims that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had failed to make findings on the specific category of misconduct and that she did not receive notice of the specific charge of theft prior to receiving a disciplinary sanction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that disciplinary cases were not criminal and that there was no need to give notice of a specific charge of theft because the charge against the Appellant was taking, without authorisation, a staff member¡¯s property. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant did not dispute having taken a bicycle without the owner¡¯s permission, but that she claimed she did not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion, that the assault committed was not misconduct and that the Organisation¡¯s jurisdictional competence did not extend to the physical assault of a non-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff member even where the assault is perpetrated by a staff member, was based on reasoning which was unsupported by law or the facts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, not only the issue had not been raised in the case presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, but such a proposition had also no foundation in the staff regulations, staff rules, administrative instructions, or jurisprudence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had nor erred in law or fact rendering its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to persuade the Court that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion of fact had rendered the decision unreasonable as required by Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence clearly supported the finding of gross negligence and loss of property, as well as the existence of the misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no due process violation on the part of the Administration for having charged the Appellant with three accounts of misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the misconduct had been established...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Alobwede. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its own opinion for that of the ICTR Registrar regarding the contested conduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the adverse effect on Mr Alobwede was not supported by evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ICTR Registrar¡¯s decision was lawful, and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that it was not, as well as in its consequent award of moral damages for the substantive breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in the level of award. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary...