Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the 60 days¡¯ deadline for the staff member to request management evaluation started from 18 March 2011, the date of the impugned decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was, therefore, receivable pursuant to Staff Rule 11. 2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding, that the repeated renewal of appointment and penultimate renewal without a break-in-service with the same conditions of service gave Mr. Igbinedion a legitimate expectation of renewal, was per incuriam and contravened clear and consistent jurisprudence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that the Administration had made any express promise giving Mr Igbinedion the expectancy that his appointment would be renewed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in holding there was a legislative vacuum since there had been no legislative vacuum of Staff Rules governing appointments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the non-renewal of Mr Igbinedion¡¯s service was valid and that the award of two months¡¯ net base salary for the frustration of his expectancy of renewal was unwarranted and, therefore, set it aside. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld that appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision not to extend his appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was receivable. Contrary to the Management Evaluation Unit¡¯s finding, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT determined that the contested decision was that dated 18 March 2011 as embodied in Mr Mensah¡¯s e-mail informing the Applicant his contract would not be renewed. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s appointment was properly based on efforts by the Organisation to streamline its practices in line with the funding situation it faced. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the repeated renewal of the Applicant¡¯s appointment without a break-in-service with the same conditions of service created a legitimate expectation of renewal because of the legislative vacuum at the time and the absence of clear rules governing temporary appointments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded the Applicant two months¡¯ net base salary for the frustration of this expectancy.
Legal Principle(s)
Fixed-term and temporary appointments carry no expectancy of renewal. The renewal of the appointment of a staff member on successive contracts does not, in and of itself, give grounds for an expectancy of renewal; unless the Administration has made an express promise that gives the staff member an expectancy that his or her appointment will be extended.