Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) and two appeals by Mr Nwuke against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 101 (NBI/2011) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/002. The Secretary-General asserted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the suspension of a contested decision without making a finding as to whether the requirements for suspension of action under Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute had been met. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not respect the limit of five working days, as set forth in Villamoran (2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-160), when it extended the suspension until 17 August 2011 when the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the discrete issue of the ¡°Observations¡± of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General, despite being the beneficiary of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in his favour, was entitled to appeal the observations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT overstepped the mark to a significant degree in effectively recording, as part of its judgment, ¡°Observations¡± in the manner in which it did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in light of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination on the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to make ¡°Observations¡± as it did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and ordered that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 233, which contended that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence in issuing an order as there was no matter for adjudication after Ms Chocobar withdrew her application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in making its Order in the absence of a case to adjudicate, lacked jurisdiction and exceeded its competence to a significant degree. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Article 36 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP did not provide a legal basis for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order, as there was no case before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to which Article 36 could apply. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that Article 36 does not allow Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and considered his grounds of appeal. With respect to the claimed errors of procedure, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s arguments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not persuaded that the Appellant suffered prejudice by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT admitting the Commissioner-General¡¯s late reply, failing to translate the reply into Arabic, failing to lift the confidentiality order, or by failing to hold an oral hearing. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that the Appellant had an unhealthy working relationship with...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no reasonable or objective analysis of Mr Luvai¡¯s submissions to management, prior to his application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, regarding his non-selection for the posts could lead to a conclusion that the revocation of his firearm licence was sufficiently linked to the non-selection decisions such as to deem the matter as receivable by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in fact and law in deciding otherwise and that, in purporting to adjudicate on the revocation of Mr Luvai¡¯s firearm licence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

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 the Secretary-General's appeal, specifically as to whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision to award special allowances for extra duties performed and compensation for moral damages was an error in law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. With respect to the allowance for extra duties, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it is settled in its jurisprudence that the Agency has discretionary powers to pay the special allowances, which must be exercised reasonably in accordance with their substantive legal requirements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no room for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to substitute its decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Hussein Haidar. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the facts, on which the disciplinary measure was based, had been established by clear and convincing evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case when considering one of the statements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the measure of...

Jurisdiction: The Tribunal is not competent to examine the lawfulness of a decision made by ECOWAS.