Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
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 activity, and then seek compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in apportioning the liability as it had. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence to support a claim for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal, granted the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal, and vacated both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgments.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr Amarah contested the decision to cancel his fixed-term appointment, which was taken on the basis that it was in breach of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s legal framework on Exceptional Voluntary Separation (EVS). Mr Amarah had taken EVS and then, in breach of its terms, taken up employment as a Camp Services Officer (CSO) during the period when reemployment was prohibited. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found that the appointment of Mr Amarah as CSO had been unlawful and that both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA and the Applicant were liable for the consequences, awarding Mr Amarah material and moral damages, apportioning liability at 25 per cent to Mr Amarah.
Legal Principle(s)
New issues cannot be introduced for the first time on appeal. He that comes to equity must come with clean hands. A staff member cannot be allowed to breach the rules knowingly, engage in unlawful activity, and then seek compensation. In general, compensation for harm must be supported by evidence.