Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s daughters applications for intervention which argued that they had been deprived of their right to education due to their mother¡¯s arbitrary separation from service, as their mother lost her only main source of income, including the education grant, and could not support their education. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the daughters did not fall within the categories of persons who had the standing to intervene, and denied the applications for intervention. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the EOD date or the refusal to amend it had a direct impact or legal consequence on the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract and therefore, it was not an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the application was receivable based on the relevant administrative decision being the refusal to amend the EOD date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in dismissing the application as beyond its temporal jurisdiction, as the Appellant¡¯s application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was filed more than three years after the impugned decision and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while there may have been an error in the misfiling of the Appellant¡¯s rebuttal, this did not result in procedural unfairness that affected the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no procedural unfairness to the Appellant as she had had the opportunity to file for leave to respond before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and she did not do so and that in any case, this did not affect the ultimate decision on receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that only the Secretary-General, of which the Management Evaluation Unit forms part, has the authority to extend or waive the time limits for management evaluation and the...

As a first preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a motion requesting confidentiality in which the Appellant sought to limit the disclosure of personal information relating to her citizenship and immigration status. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the personal data was not pertinent to the case, disclosure of the information would not have taken place without the Appellant¡¯s own motions and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT would not have asked her to disclose such information. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion. As a second preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a motion to respond to the Respondent¡¯s observations on a motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that its RoP did...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings in the form of submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had decided previously that the MICT was a Secretariat entity and was thus precluded from holding to the contrary. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not eligible for a continuing appointment for three reasons: (1) he did not work for the Secretariat; (2) the MICT had no authority to grant a continuing appointment; and (3) he was not in active service in the Secretariat under a fixed-term appointment throughout the period of consideration. On consideration...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of showing that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective or identifying grounds for appeal. In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no basis for vacating the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not specifically contest the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings on receivability and that receivability was not therefore an issue before it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if receivability was an issue before it, there was nothing provided by the Appellant to suggest that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that her application was filed one day late and was out of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it is the receipt of the management evaluation response which triggers the time limit for filing an application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, and not the moment when the staff member or her legal representative could reasonably be assumed to have taken notice of the response. In concurrence with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not presented any exceptional circumstances to justify waiving the time limits and that any such...

Noting that the Appellant passed away during the course of the litigation and before the hearing of the appeal before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the claim, namely her challenge to the Administration¡¯s refusal to move her back to her previous position, did not pass to her legal successor(s) in interest, no action is allowed to be commenced by her personal representative or successor in interest and that, under the specific circumstances of the case and due to the nature of the dispute, the issue in dispute was moot. Notwithstanding the mootness of the issue in dispute, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law with regard to its finding that the second decision to renew the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment superseded the first decision to renew his appointment (the challenged decision). Nevertheless, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this finding was not dispositive of the appeal in the Appellant¡¯s favour, as his application was not receivable on the grounds of another basis of mootness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decision to renew his fixed-term appointment by three months instead of two years did not constitute an appealable administrative decision for the simple reason that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Rugerinyange. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr. Rugerinyange sought to challenge an administrative decision directly affecting the terms of his new contract as an individual contractor. Therefore, even if the administrative decision of placing him on administrative leave with pay referred to facts which had occurred while he was still a staff member, as he claimed, it affected the new contract and his new capacity as an independent contractor. As such, he had no legal standing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order.