Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

With respect to the Appellant¡¯s appeal as it pertained to his 2016 performance evaluation and OTI, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure such as to affect the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue of the e-PERs of the other staff members was not raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and, therefore, was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reopening of the 2016 e-PER did not affect the overall performance evaluation, which was maintained as ¡°fully meets¡± expectations, and therefore this...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was unable to detect any fault in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the negative narrative comments and the performance appraisal itself constituted a reviewable administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the negative narrative comments detracted from the overall satisfactory performance appraisal of the Appellant and had present and direct legal consequences for the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment, thus the comments and the performance appraisal constituted a final administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although no performance evaluation process was legally required for termination, an appropriate procedure should have been followed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA failed to indicate that the contract would be terminated before its expiration date if the staff member did not improve his performance, and the lack of fair warning rendered the decision to terminate unlawfully. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal in part, rescinded the termination decision, and ordered reinstatement, with an in-lieu compensation of two months¡¯ net base salary.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no legal basis to conclude that subjecting the Appellant to the managerial or supervisory authority of the director was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to refuse a proposed restructuring of the line of supervision to accommodate the Appellant rested on rational legitimate concerns about the managerial prerogative, structural coherence, and institutional integrity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing on the basis that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal were clearly defined and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused to consider information pertaining to a confidential settlement proposal made to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while the absence of a response to a staff member¡¯s request may constitute an implied administrative decision, the absence of a decision without direct legal consequences is not an implied decision subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in the...

The staff member filed an appeal to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT arguing that she did not only challenge the withholding of her salary increment, but she also challenged the reasons behind the administrative decision. She claimed the JAB did not review whether there were improper motives behind the administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal, finding that the claims relating to the salary increment were indisputably moot. She obtained the relief she had originally sought, and accordingly her appeal no longer presented an existing or live controversy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT explained that any judicial examination of the reasons...

The applicant¡¯s supervisor should have recused himself from the Management Review Group (MRG) that reviewed the performance reports to avoid conflict of interest. However, this procedural irregularity was mitigated by the subsequent report of the Rebuttal Panel. Outcome: Respondent to pay the applicant the equivalent of one-month net base salary for suffering and stress.

The charge relating to the unauthorized use of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON ID card to gain access to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ premises in Nairobi was properly brought. However, before a conclusion was reached, the decision maker was required not simply to ask whether, as a question of fact, tax and duty free purchases were made by the staff member but also whether by doing so the staff member had the mens rea to abuse Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ privileges and immunities or whether he genuinely believed, on reasonable grounds that he was entitled to have access to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Commissary. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal found that on the balance of...

The Respondent contended that the Applicant¡¯s appointment was not renewed because of financial and staffing considerations, namely the ending of temporary funding for the Applicant¡¯s position. The Applicant contended that this reason was not legitimate and that the decision was tainted by discrimination and based on other factors that were not disclosed to him. The Applicant claimed that the Respondent created an expectancy of renewal of his appointment as a result of the promises given to him by his supervisor. He further submitted that his due process rights were violated during an...

The Applicant asserts, inter alia, that she was harassed and discriminated against and that her performance evaluation process was not in accordance with the established procedures. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract was based on lawful grounds and was not vitiated by any improper considerations or procedural errors. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, however, that there was an unreasonable delay in the rebuttal process. Although this delay had no bearing on the lawfulness of the contested decision, it caused emotional distress to the Applicant, for which she shall be compensated...