Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Noting that the Appellant, the innocent party, lost her employment, her career prospects within the Organisation, and the offending managers remained entrenched in their positions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a substantial variation or a striking disparity between the award made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and the award that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered ought to have been made. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given that an order of reinstatement was unlikely to be implemented, a more generous award was justifiable in the circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact in denying moral damages, as there was no corroborating...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to separate the Applicant was arbitrary, discriminatory, constituted an abuse of authority, and was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not obliged to set an in-lieu compensation amount, as the decision concerned a lateral transfer, not an appointment, promotion, or termination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that Ms. Koduru¡¯s testimony was not compelling enough to serve as a basis for an award of moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Ms. Koduru¡¯s request for costs. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Accountability referral: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence in reviewing Mr Omwanda¡¯s EOD date, as it was not subject to a timely request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Omwanda knew or ought to have known from his Letter of Appointment the date from which his appointment was effective, that he had been re-employed, not reinstated, and that its terms applied regardless of any period of former service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was statutorily barred from hearing Mr Omwanda¡¯s application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to support her allegations of bias, discrimination, and/or improper motives. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had examined all of the grounds raised in the appeal and held that there was no evidence that the Administration did not act fairly, justly, and transparently throughout the restructuring process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any error in law or fact to support her case for a reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The Secretary-General appealed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the contested decisions to abolish Ms Nouinou¡¯s post, the consequent decision not to renew her two-year fixed-term appointment, and the refusal to re-assign her for two months under a zero-dollar incumbency, where she had been selected for a short-term position, were unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made a grave error in law in terms of the basic legal position, which defined the subject of the litigation before it and the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no administrative decision to terminate Ms Nouinou¡¯s contract prior to its expiration and...

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 Mr Amarah and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2018/041 and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2018/004. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues pertaining to the CSO selection process and the contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had waived the condition of the 18-month separation after the EVS were not properly before it, as they had not been raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and were therefore not receivable. Noting that Mr Amarah had breached the prohibition of employment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he could not be allowed to breach the rules knowingly, engage in unlawful...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the finding by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that he had failed to meet his burden of proving that the assignment to work in Sector East was motivated by improper consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly considered the relevant facts and the applicable law in concluding that the Administration had followed the prescribed procedures and acted in accordance with the internal law of the Organisation in separating him for abandonment of post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant could not choose to ignore a lawful direction by the Administration to provide medical...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an oral hearing was not necessary and would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as the Appellant had not provided grounds for an oral hearing beyond seeking to confront the witnesses and comment on existing evidence. Whilst Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT as required under Art 2(1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s exercise...

On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge was biased, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s specific allegations were not made out and any missteps in the conduct of the hearing did not warrant interference with the result. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that his supervisor harassed him to the extent that his actions were mitigated substantially, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if the Appellant established that there was a dysfunctional relationship between him and his supervisor, this could not have had the effect of mitigating his actions significantly, such were the scale and duration of his misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...