Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT finding that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in that it examined the timeliness of his application sua sponte, without it having been raised by the Respondent, holding that the competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to review the observance of the statutory deadlines for filing an application can be exercised even if the parties or the administrative authorities do not raise the issue because it constitutes a matter of law and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute prevents Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT from receiving a case which...

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...

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 held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable to the extent that it contested decisions taken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings that the provisions in the GMIP were mandatory for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, that the GMIP does not include a provision with respect to retroactivity, and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA has no discretionary authority to enrol former staff members if this is not allowed in the contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the GMIP could not apply outside of its scope of application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred on the law or the facts, and that the Appellant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that neither the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute nor the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not present sufficient evidence to support his claim and demonstrate any incapacity during the relevant time frame. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the AJAB had considered all relevant evidence to the issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the ICAO Secretary-General.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant failed to reference the grounds of appeal he relied upon, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, because the Appellant did not identify the defects or grounds that rendered the impugned decision erroneous, the appeal must fail for this reason alone. In considering the rest of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant knew, or reasonably should have known, that his allowance request had been refused since 2009. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal, challenging Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the application, as it related to the second contested decision, was filed on time and was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General, that the official holiday at the New York Registry on 5 September 2016 is irrelevant for the determination of the timeliness of the individual¡¯s filing before the Nairobi Registry. Although the case was later transferred to New York, on 6 September 2016, this case was still recorded as pending before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Nairobi and the filing of all documents in that month was expected to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant simply put forward several general complaints related to the alleged merits of her case but did not argue that the judgment was defective or that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed an error in deciding that her application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there had been no new administrative decision (capable of resetting the deadlines), but merely a reiteration of the previously communicated original decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, with respect to the original decision, the Applicant did not file a request to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to suspend or extend the deadlines for filing her application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, nor did she claim exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.