Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no dispute as to the applicable statutory provision governing the timeliness of the Appellant¡¯s application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or that management evaluation was not required as the Appellant was challenging a disciplinary measure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione temporis, noting that the Appellant himself acknowledged that his application was untimely. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not waiving the time limit for him to file the application due to exceptional circumstances, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied judgment No. 2011...

The Appellant appealed judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/113 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case No. 2016-972) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/114 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case No. 2016-973). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consolidated the two appeals. The Appellant submitted a motion to withdraw her appeals following the successful conclusion of mediation discussions and the signing of a settlement agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled its jurisprudence that there was no reason to require a party to pursue an appeal he or she no longer deems necessary in the context of his or her case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the motion to withdraw the Appellant¡¯s appeals and directed the Registrar to close both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT cases.

As a preliminary issue, Mr Chhikara brought a motion seeking leave to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit setting out his credentials for the post and credentials of the selected candidate, claiming that he was not aware that this information was relevant at the time he made his initial submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused this motion on the basis that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated and that Mr Chhikara¡¯s explanation that he only realized the relevance of additional evidence after the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision did not escape the fact that it was known to him at the time. As another...

Ms Nielsen appealed judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/111 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case No. 2016-964) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/114 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case No. 2016-969). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consolidated the two appeals. Ms Nielsen submitted motions to withdraw her appeals following successful mediation discussions and the signing of a settlement agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the motions to withdraw the appeals and directed the Registrar to close both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT cases.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s suggestion that the standard of proof required to rebut the presumption of regularity should be one of preponderance of evidence, was not correct and that the rebuttal of the presumption should occur only where clear and convincing evidence establishes that an irregularity was highly probable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s version did not support an inference of corruption of the process or that he was not fully and fairly considered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the Appellant met all the educational, work experience, and language requirements of the position, he failed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Administration had failed to provide a performance-related justification for its decision not to renew Mr Ncube¡¯s fixed-term appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision not to renew Mr Ncube¡¯s appointment had to be upheld despite the fact that his e-PAS suffered from procedural irregularities as it did not consider that the flaws rendered the appraisal unlawful or unreasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the decision not to renew the appointment was justified because the Secretary-General proved that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal against both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/106/Corr.1 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/106/Corr.2 which did not concern the determination on the merits of the application, but rather the rejection of the Appellant¡¯s application for interim measures by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and certain conduct by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and its Registrar. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s criticisms of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision to amend its own Judgment were well-founded as the corrections went beyond clerical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slips or omissions; they were unexplained corrections that altered the main findings of the Judgment and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not have the power to remand the case back to the ABCC, since an order under that provision requires the concurrence of the Secretary-General to that effect. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only proper course for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to take was either to remand the case to the ABCC with the Secretary-General¡¯s concurrence or to consider whether the procedural flaws warranted the rescission of the impugned administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, by making an order to remand the case to the Administration without the concurrence of the Secretary-General, exceeded its competence and committed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ruling that the 2010 decisions were time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted ultra vires or in excess of its competence and jurisdiction by considering whether the Appellant had shown exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the filing deadline, and thus held that the relevant paragraphs of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment were obiter dicta and should be stricken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in holding the Appellant¡¯s motion or request for waiver of the deadline as not receivable ratione temporis on the basis that while it was not timely, that did...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not expressly rescind the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of appointment, the award of compensation in lieu of rescission could be read as an implied order of rescission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT gave no reasoning for the calculation of compensation, nor did it specify what amount corresponded to in-lieu compensation and what amount as compensation for loss of opportunity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT awarded three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation in lieu of rescission of the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of...