UNDT/2018/057 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

UNDT/2018/057, Nakwafio

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

As a staff member on an FTA, the Applicant had no right in law to have his contract renewed. The decision to abolish the post encumbered by the Applicant was taken for legitimate business needs in that it was within the discretion of the decision makers within OCHA to conclude that the functions being performed by the Applicant at the time were part of OCHA’s core mandate and that there was not the need to have a dedicated unit to carry them out. Having arrived at this decision and having regard to the need to streamline services and effect the required cost savings it was legitimate for OCHA to; carry out a comparative review of the relative suitability of the Applicant and the successful candidate. The Applicant did not show that the structural reorganization or the decision to prefer the successful candidate was motivated by impermissible considerations. Absent evidence of impropriety, staff are bound by the fundamental principle that a fixed term appointment does not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant challenged the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment (FTA) beyond 31 December 2015.

Legal Principle(s)

Absent evidence of impropriety, staff are bound by the fundamental principle that a fixed term appointment does not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal. For a staff member’s claim of legitimate expectation of a renewal of appointment to be sustained, it must not be based on mere verbal assertion, but on a firm commitment to renewal revealed by the circumstances of the case; and the burden is on the staff member to show a legitimate expectancy of renewal or the existence of improper motives.

Outcome

Dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Nakwafio

Entity

UNDP

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NBI/2016/30

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

Nairobi