Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find that the facts supporting the disciplinary measure had been established and to conclude that those facts amounted to misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT supported the reasoning of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s attempts at exoneration, namely that factors such as whether or not her husband was qualified for the job or the other candidate secured another position did not change the existence of a conflict of interest and the way in which the integrity of the process was compromised. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the first time the Appellant¡¯s claim for implementation of the sanction (an apology to the Appellant) was raised was on appeal and that it was therefore not receivable, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not barred from requesting Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to enforce its letter of censure. On the Appellant¡¯s claim for moral damages, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s order denying the Appellant¡¯s request for moral damages since there was no evidence of harm. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

On the delay before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the delay was unfortÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵATe but held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was a procedural error affecting the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in exercising its case management discretion when it refused the request for an oral hearing, but that this error did not affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed sexual harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable decision when it held that Mr Siddiqi had not threatened to kill identified staff members but only had made an unspecified threat to kill ¡°some¡± staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the statements of the three witnesses rendered clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant did not only utter an unspecified threat but that he had threatened to kill identified staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also erred in law and fact when it concluded that threat was not serious...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in attaching no weight to the medical evidence and in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was based on an incorrect determination of the nature and gravity of the assault. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were other more important factors to consider, including the fact that the Appellant was a staff member in charge of local security and that his conduct was an abuse of authority and oppressive of a local inhabitant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that the test of proportionality required a comparison between the misconduct and the sanction, not the investigation and disciplinary...

On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge was biased, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s specific allegations were not made out and any missteps in the conduct of the hearing did not warrant interference with the result. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that his supervisor harassed him to the extent that his actions were mitigated substantially, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if the Appellant established that there was a dysfunctional relationship between him and his supervisor, this could not have had the effect of mitigating his actions significantly, such were the scale and duration of his misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr. Nyawa. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Nyawa committed the disciplinary offenses attributed to him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the established facts amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr. Nyawa. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that a written censure was subsumed by the sanction of deferment for eligibility for promotion, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that the deferment for eligibility for promotion was sufficient sanction was not a manifestly unreasonable decision warranting Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT intervention...

nglÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in law or fact in finding that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the preponderance of the evidence showed that the Appellant hit a student forcefully on the back during the 25 October 2016 distribution of school bags. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in relying on the testimony of the Donor Relations Officer (DRO), which is of high value. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that he was a neutral witness without any personal interest in the matter and he did not know the Appellant before. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Kaddoura. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment in part. It only vacated the referral of the former Commissioner-General for accountability, finding that it was not adequate to rely on hearsay to refer a former staff member, be it the former Commissioner-General or any other, to accountability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that there was no possibility of imposing a disciplinary measure on a former staff member, and as such any such referral would be ineffectual.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Kennedy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the sanction letter and record provided inadequate reasons for judicial review leading to the finding that no rational connection or relationship between the evidence and the objective of the disciplinary action has been established. As a result, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was unable to assess the proportionality and lawfulness of the imposition of the disciplinary sanctions.