Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2019/017

UNDT/2019/017, Ongeri

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal did not agree with the Respondent that the actions of the Applicant as seen on the video footages were sufficient to rise to the required standard of proof of clear and convincing evidence to establish stealing; but found that the actions of the Applicant after he left with the shopping bag and the glaring inconsistencies in his testimony clearly pointed to a level of dishonesty betraying guilty knowledge that he did not pay for the items at issue. In other words, the Applicant knew that he did not pay for certain items especially after he, a career security officer, was accosted barely an hour later by the Commissary’s manager. He however chose to behave as if nothing had happened. The Applicant’s three differing accounts that (a) he did not know that the box of chocolates was not scanned by the cashier, (b) that he had given the cashier Ksh2,000 stuck together rather than Ksh1,000 and (c) that he had paid for the box of chocolates before he went to pick it off the shelves; were fatal to his case. Clearly, these differing accounts were the products of a guilty mind, not the words of an honest staff member.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant challenged the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and with termination indemnity imposed on him by the Respondent.

Legal Principle(s)

Staff Regulation 1.2(b) provides that staff members shall uphold the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity. The regulation explains further that integrity includes probity, impartiality, fairness, honesty and truthfulness in all matters affecting their work and status. Staff Regulation 1.2(f) enjoins staff members to conduct themselves at all times in a manner befitting their status as international civil servants. In misconduct, especially if it concerns theft or misappropriation, it needs be established that the subject staff member has guilty knowledge that he or she has engaged in the act alleged against him or her. There are areas of law such as Tort and Commercial practice where persons may be liable, because by virtue of their position, they ought to have known or are deemed to know certain facts. Misconduct does not belong in those areas of law.

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.

Applicants/ Appellants
Ongeri
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type