Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/2017/060, Mofiling
The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent failed to notify the Applicant of the overpayment and that this failure was a breach of its obligation under section 2.3 of ST/AI/2009/1. Although the Applicant failed to report the overpayment, the Tribunal found that he was not negligent in his duty to report because he was caught up in a perilous security situation at the time he received his pay slip at the end of November 2015, which may have caused him to not advise the Respondent of the overpayment. The Tribunal noted further that ST/AI/2009/1 does not make the Respondent¡¯s obligation to notify...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/2017/058, Syrja
Since there was no written agreement or any other signed document that clearly showed the Respondent¡¯s undertaking to pay the Applicant USD10, 790, the Tribunal determined whether there was an implied in-fact contract by examining the parties¡¯ intentions based on their conduct and other circumstances to establish if there was mutual assent and consideration. The Tribunal concluded that all the elements of a binding, valid and enforceable contract existed between the parties because: (i) there was mutual assent leading both parties to jointly inform the Tribunal that they had established the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/2017/056, Ngoga
The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s claim in respect of recoveries from his pension, affirmed by the Management Evaluation Unit on 14 April 2015 was not receivable. The Tribunal held that the Applicant had until 13 July 2015 to file an application challenging the decision but he failed to do so. With regard to the Applicant¡¯s request for retroactive dependency benefits of his adopted children, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of that decision within 60 calendar days, but he did not do so. Consequently, the application was rejected as it was...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/2017/057, Daniel
After being presented with the allegations of misconduct on 9 July 2014, the Applicant responded on 21 August 2014. The decision to impose a disciplinary sanction on the Applicant was communicated to him on 4 December 2014. Thus, a review of the entire case against the Applicant and communicating to him of the outcome took a little over three months. This time frame was not unreasonable and did not constitute a breach of due process. On the facts before the Tribunal, the Applicant did not adduce any evidence to give the Tribunal a basis for reviewing the Secretary-General¡¯s exercise of...
2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-781, Rajan
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT dismissed Mr Rajan¡¯s motion for the appeal to be heard on an expedited basis as it had become moot as the ordinary case management constraints meant it could not have been heard any earlier. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT made an error of law in holding that the Secretary-General was obliged to prove that Mr Rajan had the intention to mislead the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that there was no doubt that Mr Rajan misrepresented the true situation more than once. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that it was Mr Rajan¡¯s responsibility to ascertain that he was providing accurate...
2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-780, Muwambi
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s finding that there was no legal basis for the Administration to assert that Mr Muwambi was subject to the requirement of clearance by a central review body, constituted an error of law since such clearance was a requirement clearly established by the legal framework of the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that, given the discontinuation since 30 June 2015 of the practice of temporarily reassigning staff affected by downsizing in a peacekeeping mission to allow them to apply for vacant positions, practice on which Mr Muwambi¡¯s...
2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-782, Muindi
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the summary dismissal decision was unlawful because the due process rights under IMO¡¯s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules were substantially violated. The Appellant had been charged with misconduct in the form of fraudulent activities undertaken to gain diplomatic accreditation, namely giving instructions to append an electronic signature to an official IMO communication without authorization or instruction by that colleague and misrepresenting his contractual status as internationally recruited in that communication. Noting that the Secretary-General of IMO considered the...
2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-777, Faust
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was lawfully terminated in accordance with the amended terms of her appointment and that her appeal had no merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Appellant failed to meet the burden of proof of the alleged improper motivation for the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµFCCC advertised nine fixed-term positions at the G-5 level, but that the Appellant did not apply for any of them, her aim being to secure a P-2 level position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found no fault in Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s conclusion that the Administration had no duty to seek a suitable position for the Applicant beyond the...
2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-778, Faust
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT rejected the argument that the written test should have been prepared by the Hiring Manager, and not the direct supervisor of the position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held, in agreement with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s conclusion, that the Appellant had failed to show that the Hiring Manager¡¯s intervention in the preparation of the written test resulted in her non-selection for the contested post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim was fully and fairly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found no fault in Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s finding that the design, conduct, and evaluation of the written test did not constitute a violation of the Appellant¡¯s right...
2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-779, Abu Hweidi et al.
ArÄ¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT¡¯s decision not to hold an oral hearing was a shortcoming since the parties had not agreed to the case being decided on the papers and the facts needed to be established by witnesses and/or further documentary evidence. On the question of bias and its possible bearing on the outcome of the selection process, Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT should have engaged in a thorough examination of the facts, rather than drawing an inference. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the inference drawn by Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT, that it was realistic to conclude that not all of the posts could be filled by suitable candidates...