Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Interlocutory or interim appeal / Appeal of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT

  • Execution of order pending appeal
  • Interim measure
  • Manifest excess of jurisdiction
  • Production de documents
  • Production of documents
  • Receivability
  • Suspension of action
    • Showing 11 - 20 of 52
    020 (NBI/2024), Harjit Dhindsa
    • Appealed
    In this case, the Management Advice and Evaluation Section had already issued a response to the Applicant¡¯s 22 December 2023 request for management evaluation. There was no management evaluation pending and, consequently, one of the mandatory requirements for the examination of applications for suspension of action was not met. In view of the foregoing, the application for suspension of action pending management evaluation was dismissed as not receivable.
    014 (NBI/2024), Jayne Kimani
    • Appealed
    In this case, the Management Evaluation Unit had already determined that the Applicant¡¯s request for a management evaluation was time-barred and was therefore not receivable. As there was no management evaluation pending and, consequently, one of the mandatory requirements for the examination of applications for suspension of action was not met. Additionally, pursuant to art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Dispute Tribunal shall not suspend or waive the deadlines for management evaluation.
    007 (NBI/2024), Jean-Joseph Henry
    • Appealed
    1. The Tribunal noted that in sec. VI of his application form, the Applicant declared that he did not request management evaluation. Indeed, he did not file a copy of his management evaluation request with his application. The record showed that the Applicant was yet to request management evaluation of the decision he sought to have suspended. 2. The Tribunal recalled that applications filed pursuant to arts. 2.2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and 13.1 of the Rules of Procedure must be predicated on a pending management evaluation. Consequently, since the Applicant had not requested...
    002 (GVA/2024), Torres Sibille
    • Appealed
    The Applicant argued that the contested decision was prima facie unlawful on two grounds: The justification for abolishing her post was false and misleading. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA had created a legal expectation of contract renewal. Regarding the first claim, the Tribunal held that a staff member¡¯s disagreement with the rationale behind post abolition does not render the decision unlawful. Additionally, while Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA officials could have been more transparent when the Applicant sought clarification, their lack of candor¡ªthough unfortunate¡ªdid not amount to unlawfulness in the decision not to renew her...
    063 (NBI/2025), George Lwanda

     

    1. The Tribunal noted that, in his reply, the Respondent informed the Tribunal that he had voluntarily decided to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment through 30 June 2025. As an annex to the reply, the Respondent provided a copy of the Applicant¡¯s Personnel Action, indicating that his appointment had been extended to 30 June 2025.

    2. The Tribunal thus held that, in light of the above, the Applicant¡¯s request for suspension of the implementation of the contested administrative decision had become moot. The Tribunal, therefore, did not find it necessary to examine whether...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1495-Corr.1, ABA

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the interlocutory appeal was receivable because ABA had not been given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the protective measures for V01 at the proposed hearing at the time the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT issued the first Order. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this was not grounds to grant the interlocutory appeal, because ABA¡¯s arguments were heard by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT when he filed his motion for reconsideration.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction when it issued these case management orders. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was also not persuaded by ABA¡¯s argument that the violation...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1446, Ashok Kumar Nigam

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since Mr. Nigam based his interlocutory appeal on alleged errors of fact and law by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge President, with no allegation of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acting extra-jurisdictionally or similarly in excess of its jurisdiction, he must wait to exercise his right of appeal until a final decision has been made.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that an earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment contained neither any indication of bias by Judge Belle against Mr. Nigam, nor any criticism beyond what a reasonably informed observer might expect from a partly erroneous judgment and its subsequent appellate review.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1419, Nicole Wynn

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Dispute Tribunal had issued the impugned Order granting the request to extend the time limit for filing the application without the adversely-affected party being heard and without authority to do so. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not technically complied with its own Practice Direction in issuing the Order and may have strictly violated the principles of natural justice and due process by failing to give the Secretary-General adequate notice of the motion and an opportunity to reply.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed, however, that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had accepted the staff member¡¯s averment...

    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1388, Yassir Ibrahim Ali Haroun

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/124 and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nevertheless observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022). Despite this, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case. With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rightfully refused to...

    2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1307, ASR AHMED TOSON

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable on grounds that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not clearly exceeded its competence or jurisdiction or assumed a jurisdiction it did not have when it consolidated Mr. Toson's cases. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that Mr. Toson had advanced similar unsuccessful arguments in an earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT case that he brought, but Mr. Toson refused to be guided by that judgment prior to pursuing the present appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT put Mr. Toson on notice that he risks incurring an award of costs for vexatious litigation if he persists in pursuing the same...