Termination | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-626, Masri

24 Mar 2016

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, since the Appellant had not made an application to the 罌厭弝ⅰRWA Internal Justice Committee on the issue of the recusal and conflict of interest, it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish in his appeal that it was unreasonable for 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT to conclude that there was no evidence of bias in the decision to abolish his post. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT judgment.

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-768, Smith

14 Jul 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT correctly determined that the Appellant challenged an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment and that the application was receivable. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General＊s submission that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr Smith＊s request for management evaluation and the MEU＊s response, on the basis that it was the role of 罌厭弝ⅰDT to adequately interpret and...

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-765, Fasanella

14 Jul 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held the 罌厭弝ⅰDT correctly determined that Mr Fasanella was affecting an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there was no merit to the complaint that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr Fasanella＊s request for management evaluation and the Management Evaluation Unit＊s response, on the basis that it was the role of 罌厭弝ⅰDT to adequately interpret and comprehend the application and that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had the inherent power to...

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-764, Zachariah

14 Jul 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held the 罌厭弝ⅰDT correctly determined that Mr. Zachariah was challenging an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there was no merit to the complaint that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr. Zachariah＊s request for management evaluation and the Management Evaluation Unit＊s response, on the basis that it was the role of 罌厭弝ⅰDT to adequately interpret and comprehend the application and that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had the inherent power to...

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-756, Nkashama et al.

14 Jul 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore 罌厭弝ⅰAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgments.

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-755, Ramazani et al.

14 Jul 2017

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-754, Kisubi et al.

14 Jul 2017

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-753, Kiluwe et al.

14 Jul 2017

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-752, Baguma et al.

14 Jul 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and 罌厭弝ⅰAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgments.

2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-751, Wanza et al.

14 Jul 2017

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual differences nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-罌厭弝ⅰAT-750 (Kagizi et al.). 罌厭弝ⅰAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment in paragraphs 18-27. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgments.