Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Noting that the position in question remained vacant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to leave the position vacant was an exercise of the discretionary authority of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and that there was no procedural irregularity or error of law within the exercise of that discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet the required burden to be heard on appeal, namely, he failed to identify any of the prescribed grounds of appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was estopped from raising new arguments on appeal with respect to priority consideration and facts on enrolment which were not argued before...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decision could have had an indirect impact on the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract, a direct effect is needed in order to allow a staff member to contest an adverse administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA granted the change of modality of contract to the other individual did not have any bearing on the outcome of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decision, because the application was dismissed on receivability grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in any of its factual findings resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

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.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed an error of fact in stating that the OPT Allowance was paid in local currency, which led Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to commit an error of law in stating that Area Staff Circular No. A/04/2014 was applicable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Area Staff Circular No. A/04/2014 was only applicable to the Jerusalem Allowance and not the OPT Allowance, which was paid in US Dollars. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that such an error of law would be inconsequential if its second line of reasoning, that no rule or policy requires the CAF be applied to the OPT Allowance, was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no rule requiring...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Commissioner-General's submission that the appeal was defective because it failed to identify any of the grounds of appeal prescribed by Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s ground of appeal was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General was obliged to calculate the Appellant¡¯s retirement benefits in accordance with the new Staff Rule and did so correctly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit any error of fact and law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

With respect to the Appellant¡¯s appeal as it pertained to his 2016 performance evaluation and OTI, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure such as to affect the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue of the e-PERs of the other staff members was not raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and, therefore, was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reopening of the 2016 e-PER did not affect the overall performance evaluation, which was maintained as ¡°fully meets¡± expectations, and therefore this...

On appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT limited its consideration to the issue of the amount of compensation awarded in lieu of rescission and the amount of compensation awarded for harm. On the issue of in lieu compensation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to advance any error of law or of fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in lieu compensation is not intended to compensate for the possible harm suffered by the injured person, as that is the specific aim of compensation for harm. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had the discretion to fix this amount as a generic sum and was not bound by...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Amarah and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2018/041 and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2018/004. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues pertaining to the CSO selection process and the contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had waived the condition of the 18-month separation after the EVS were not properly before it, as they had not been raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and were therefore not receivable. Noting that Mr Amarah had breached the prohibition of employment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he could not be allowed to breach the rules knowingly, engage in unlawful...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the 1994 and 2018 requests made by the Appellant to change his date of birth were essentially the same requests. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that the reiteration of an original administrative decision if repeatedly questioned, does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory timeline. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the statutory period during which the Appellant had to file a challenge to the 1994 decision expired in 1997. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in dismissing the application. On consideration of the Respondent¡¯s claim to award costs, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not satisfied that the pursuit of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Applicant failed to discharge his evidentiary burden to establish that his application was filed timeously. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was 8 days late and, as such, not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.