Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or in fact in finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable in that it failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues relating to the conduct of the first test were of no relevance to the appeal and had no legal consequence because the first test and the proposed selection exercise had been cancelled. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that a selection process may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of that process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in dismissing the first three grounds of the application. With respect to the second test, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the Appellant was unable to contest the Agency¡¯s decision to conduct a...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues of the appeal were clearly defined. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected to annex a medical report as evidence since the Appellant had not filed a motion, finding that the admission of documents was not in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae, considering that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, in unequivocal terms, provides that the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT on an application for suspension of action shall not be subject to appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the...
Both parties appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct regarding the non-receivability ratione materiae with respect to the first three decisions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, disagreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had unlawfully delayed check-out, including his final payments and the submission of the required forms for his pension, since the period of three and a half months which was taken by the Administration to investigate and proceed with Mr Nchimbi¡¯s ¡°check-out¡± was not unreasonable in the given circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Secretary-General's appeal and dismissed Mr Nchimbi¡¯s...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae was correct, since the Appellant had failed to challenge the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵTSO CHRO¡¯s response, the original administrative decision of 6 May 2015, by requesting a management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify grounds for his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly based its conclusion about the legality of the termination decision on the medical assessment by the medical board and without medical findings of its own. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s appointment on medical grounds was a reasonable and valid exercise of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof of demonstrating an error in the impugned judgment such as...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellants¡¯ consolidated appeals against the rejection of their requests to be upgraded to a higher level. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he was both the employer¡¯s representative and the original...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was only advisory or recommendatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer¡¯s representative and the original decision-maker. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not neutral in the first instance process, who took the final decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to exercise its jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute in regard to the decision of IMO SAB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in this case, even if the SAB issued decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer¡¯s representative and the original decision-maker. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not a...
Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...
