Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal against Order No. 057 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/027. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for confidentiality and for the redaction of his name from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s reasoning. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to submit new evidence to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT on the basis that the Appellant did not offer any explanation as to why he was precluded from filing them previously, exceptional circumstances did not exist, and its content would not have affected the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to consider that it had before it sufficient information to enable it to reach its decision without holding an oral hearing and there was no error in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contentions that his due process rights to seek production of documents and build his case were violated by reason of the Commissioner-General¡¯s allegedly limited reply and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in rejecting his motion for production of documents. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it discerned no error in procedure in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s rejection of the Appellant¡¯s motion for production of document. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in granting the Commissioner-General leave to participate in the proceedings after he had failed to file his reply with the time limits was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the manner in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exercised its discretion allowing the Commissioner-General to participate and accepting his late filing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while it did not condone ex parte communications, it did not accept that the practice amounted to underhanded behaviour and was satisfied that no prejudice was caused to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not establish any procedural errors warranting the reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to consider that it was a case of constructive dismissal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was not satisfied that the actions of the Appellant¡¯s supervisors forced the Appellant to leave his job as he never filed a formal complaint in that regard and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT determined that it was the Appellant who voluntarily tendered his resignation just one month after being further extended for an additional one year. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that there was no evidence that the fact his appointment was only extended for one year, as opposed to three years, was motivated by ill will or was intended to harass the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the Appellant¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA erred in fact and law in finding that he did not have any expectancy of renewal for a three-year period. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence of a firm commitment to renew the Appellant¡¯s contract for three years. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered all of the other claims of the Appellant and found them to be without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.