Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

As to the appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Order for expungement of the impugned documents from its case file, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was receivable because, unless the documents were preserved for use at trial, they might be lost with the consequence that the Secretary-General would be unable to use them to establish his allegations of forgery and fraud as he was entitled to. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Order was, in this respect, effectively irremediable; that this would be a manifestly unreasonable consequence of the Order for the Secretary-General; and that the circumstances were so rare and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the determination of the Director of the Ethics Office that no retaliation had occurred constituted an administrative decision that went directly to the merits of the case and could not be subject to an interlocutory appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT order for production of document was not receivable, because it was interrelated to the alleged lack of jurisdiction. Noting that the Appellant would not be able to raise his issues in an appeal against the final judgment, as he did not file an application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not issued a judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Secretary-General filed appeals against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Orders. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that, generally, only appeals against final judgments are receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that an interlocutory appeal is receivable exceptionally in cases where Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not interfere lightly with the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in the management of cases. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that one of the goals of the new system of administration of justice is rendering timely judgments; cases before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could seldom proceed if either party were able to appeal interlocutory...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal against Order No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/O/2010/023 by the Secretary-General. Applying the principle that a party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the judgment on legal or academic grounds, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Order had no practical effect following the withdrawal of the request for suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was moot as it was academic and sought an opinion regarding the issues raised in the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s interlocutory appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order as not receivable, finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.

The Secretary-General appealed, asserting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence in ordering suspension of the decision not to renew Mr Onana¡¯s appointment until it determined the substantive application on its merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision to suspend the execution of an administrative decision constitutes an exception to the general principle of the right to appeal and must therefore be narrowly interpreted; this exception only applies to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of an administrative decision pending a management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Secretary-General appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, where the implementation of an administrative decision is imminent, through no fault or delay on the part of the staff member, and takes place before the five days provided for under Article 13 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP have elapsed, and where Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is not in a position to make a decision under Article 2. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, i. e. because it requires further information or time to reflect on the matter, it must have the discretion to grant a suspension of action for these five days. To find otherwise would render Article 2. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by the Secretary-General of Order Nos. 30 (NBI/2011) and 33 (NBI/2011). Order No. 30 (NBI/2011) extended the suspension of action until 13 May 2011, beyond the date on which the management evaluation was completed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have granted a suspension until 13 May 2011 or until the completion of management evaluation if the latter was earlier. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction and committed an error of law. Order No. 33 (NBI/2011) extended the suspension until the final determination of the case, and therefore beyond the completion of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s exercise of its jurisdictional powers, conferred on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by its Statute, which enables cases to be judged fairly and expeditiously. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the complaints made by the Secretary-General fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, notwithstanding the alleged breach of procedural fairness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Orders No. 082 (NBI/2011) and No. 083 (NBI/2011) by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the main motivation for ordering the suspension of action in Order No. 82 was to grant access to justice to the staff member and that the Order could be sustained because a certain degree of discretion had to be awarded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to consider and resolve urgent matters such as interim measures. On Order No. 83, which extended the suspension of action until 12 August 2011, in breach of the five working days restrictive period to render the decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...