Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found the Respondent¡¯s explanation for extending the Applicant¡¯s FTA for one month plausible. It thus held that the impugned decision was not unlawful.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had successfully rebutted the presumption of regularity and proved with clear and convincing evidence that his non-selection was based on improper motive.

The Tribunal found that there was clear and convincing evidence that between 7 and 10 December 2016, at his residence, the Applicant had sexual intercourse with one Congolese woman, V0. By his own admission during the investigation, the Applicant procured sexual services of V0 whom he had picked up from a bar where he had been drinking and paid her FC40,000 through an intermediary, Francois. The Tribunal held that based on strict interpretation of the applicable legal provisions, in particular, staff rule 1.2(e), it did not make any difference that money was requested and paid after the sexual...

The Tribunal found that because separation was not the sanction imposed on the Applicant, the applicable standard of proof was one on a preponderance of evidence. This standard was lower than clear and convincing evidence which the Respondent had to prove to show that the Applicant committed misconduct as alleged. It was evident from the facts that the Applicant and at least one other person led a group to the Complainant¡¯s house. The Applicant played an active role in the alleged harassment. This fact was proved to the requisite standard. The Tribunal found that a group of at least five local...

The application was not receivable because the Applicant did not derive negative consequences from the putative error in the EOD date.

The Tribunal noted that the allegations of poor behaviour and the fact that those behaviours undermined the Applicant¡¯s capacity to discharge the responsibilities assigned to him in an effective manner were not included in his performance evaluations. The fact that the allegations later became the subject of the email to the USGs of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Field Service and formed the basis for the decision to reassign the Applicant to another office showed that there was no transparency on the part of the Respondent in the matter. The Tribunal also...

The Applicant applied for JO 57267 as a former staff member, and in the same capacity he filed his challenge to the non-selection decision for JO 57267. There was no nexus between the Applicant¡¯s former employment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR and his standing as an applicant for JO 57267. The alleged fact that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR in their recruitment processes applied the legal fiction of treating former staff members as internal applicants for a period of time, did not create a nexus extending over any other recruitment processes, such as the contested one.

The Tribunal noted the uncontroverted evidence that the Applicant gave unsolicited responses in line with the Panel¡¯s questioning format which he seems to have been privy to. The Panel had no opportunity to ask him questions in areas such as gender since he gave successive examples in different aspects of the interview areas in a short time span. This evidence supported the finding that the Applicant¡¯s conduct did not facilitate his meaningful engagement with the Panel beyond what took place. He could not argue therefore that the Panel did not probe to elicit more appropriate examples from him...

The Tribunal found that the ABCC considered all relevant matters in arriving at the decision, and that the impugned decision was legal, rational, and procedurally correct. The submission that the application was not receivable rationae materiae and rationae temporis was without merit and was rejected. Contrary to the Respondent¡¯s assertion, the ABCC¡¯s letter of 29 December 2017 was an administrative decision given that it was arrived at after the Applicant, in response to the ABCC¡¯s email of 25 May 2017 inviting him to furnish new evidence. He furnished new evidence relating to each of the...

The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment beyond 15 January 2020 was superseded by subsequent decisions that resulted in the Applicant¡¯s appointment being renewed to June 2020. Other than alleging that bias and an abuse of authority led to the superseded decision, the Applicant failed to demonstrate to the Tribunal how his rights remained adversely affected by the contested decision.