Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.

In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.

In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.

In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.

In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.

In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...

The Tribunal noted that the gist of the application, clearly, was against the warning letter and not against the management evaluation in and of its own. The management evaluation request in this case was filed outside the statutory deadlines but above all, was unnecessary. The application against a non-disciplinary measure issued pursuant to staff rule 10.2(b) does not require management evaluation. In this case, pursuant to staff rule 11.4(b), the Applicant ought to have filed his application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from the date on which he received notification of the...

The UNAT concluded that the UNDT erred in considering that the different periods of ALWOP on which Mr. Okwakol was placed, were the subject of a single and continuing administrative decision.  The UNAT held that each of the three identifiable periods was the subject of consideration or reconsideration of the circumstances at that time. On each occasion, the Organisation took a decision about the state of the misconduct investigation and its ongoing nature and advised Mr. Okwakol accordingly. It was not decisive or even material that the renewals of the ALWOP were referred to as extensions of...

The UNAT first reviewed the Secretary-General’s claim that the UNDT erred in finding that Mr. Loto’s application was receivable with respect to the entire period for which he was on ALWOP.  The Secretary-General contended that Mr. Loto had timely challenged only an initial ALWOP decision, and not a subsequent decision when the ALWOP was extended.  The UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General’s receivability argument, finding that the Secretary-General was estopped from raising it on appeal.  The UNAT observed that Mr. Loto had filed a request for management evaluation of the second ALWOP decision...

The UNAT first dismissed Mr. Okwakol’s appeal of the UNDT Order, finding that  Mr. Okwakol’s complaints about what the UNDT decided it would admit into evidence and what submissions it would consider in deciding his substantive case, were remediable as part of his appeal on the merits if they were wrongly decided.

The UNAT agreed that the UNDT was correct to admit the audio-recording made by the SEA victim because this evidentiary material was relied upon by the Administration in taking the decision to impose the disciplinary measure of separation from service.  The audio-recording needed to...

The UNAT first dismissed as not receivable Mr. Loto’s appeal of the UNDT’s Order denying his motion to strike an audio-recording and certain pleadings submitted by the Secretary-General.  The UNAT held that these matters could be addressed in Mr. Loto’s appeal of the judgment on the merits of his application.

The UNAT was satisfied that the UNDT correctly admitted the audio-recording of the meeting between the alleged victim, Mr. Loto and others, as the recording assisted in resolving any evidential conflict about what transpired at this meeting, in which payment to the victim was discussed...